IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.4306/2008 Date of Decision: 27.5.2009. Harbhag Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Dalip Singh and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Bhuwan Luthra,Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Amit Rawal,Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner-plaintiff has filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 16.4.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Ludhiana, dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint and site plan. Petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is exclusive owner in possession of house measuring 7 marlas comprised in khewat no.224, khatauni no.276, khasra no.154 as entered in jamabandi for the year 1989-90 situated at Village Chhandrana, Tehsil and District Ludhiana, and as shown red in the site plan attached with the plaint. The said suit was instituted on 21.10.1998. After almost 10 years, petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 27.2.2008 (Annexure P/2) seeking amendment of the plaint CR NO.4306/2008 2 and site plan on the grounds that due to inadvertence and typographical mistakes, wrong boundaries of suit property have been mentioned in plaint and site plan attached therewith. It was also stated that similarly wrong khasra and khata numbers and wrong year of jamabandi have been mentioned in the plaint. Upon notice of the application, it was contested by the respondents-defendants on the ground of (i) delay and (ii) if proposed amendments were allowed the nature of the suit will be changed and they will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated with money. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 will not be applicable to the present suit as it was filed prior to the coming into force of the amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code and as such even after commencement of trial, trial Court was not barred from permitting proposed amendments. It is further submitted that proposed amendments will not prejudice the respondents-defendants in any manner and moreover they can be compensated by way of costs. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that in view of proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 proposed CR NO.4306/2008 3 amendments can not be permitted and secondly that if permitted it will seriously prejudice the case of the respondents-defendants. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. A perusal of the amendment application, which has been appended as Annexure P-2 with the present petition, reveals that proposed amendments were prayed on the ground of inadvertent and typographical mistakes that allegedly crept in while describing the boundaries of the suit property. Perusal of Annexure P-2 further reveals that substantial changes in the description of boundaries of the suit property, by way of proposed amendments, were sought. At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants produced a copy of the written statement dated 28.4.1999, which has been taken on record. A perusal of the same reveals that in para 4 respondents-defendants had denied the correctness of the boundaries. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff that even after denial of correctness of the boundaries by defendants-respondents, the petitioner took no steps to file any replication thereto or to seek amendment of the plaint at that stage. Instead he chose to remain silent and let the proceedings continue. It is not disputed that issues have already been framed and plaintiff has also led his evidence. As already pointed out above, he has moved the present amendment application after 10 years. No ground/reasons for CR NO.4306/2008 4 this inordinate delay have been put forth. It is also not the case of the petitioner that despite his due diligence the mistakes sought to be amended now, crept in the plaint and site plan. On the other hand as mentioned above, despite pointing out the incorrectness of the boundaries of the suit property by the defendants-respondents, petitioner-plaintiff took no steps to correct the same. As such, in my opinion, now petitioner-plaintiff cannot be allowed to carry out substantial amendments in the plaint regarding the boundaries of the suit property as well as in the site plan, as the same cannot be said to be inadvertent or typographical mistakes. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 27.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge