Civil Rev. 1784 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 1784 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.7.2009 Ajit Singh Petitioner vs Jaswinder Kaur Respondent Present Mr. Mr. NC Sahni, Advocate Mr. GPS Bal, Advocate M.M.S.BEDI,J. Defendant has challenged order dated 19.3.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.D.) Jalandhar allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC permitting the plaintiff-respondent to incorporate amendments in the plaint to the effect that the suit property has been shown to be situated in area Jalandhar whereas the same is situated in Village Reru. Besides this, the plaintiff-respondent had also sought an additional relief that the plaintiff is entitled to joint possession. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is a frivolous suit, which is pending for the last 10 years. The amendment sought for changes the nature of the suit. He has further contended that the property in dispute has already been acquired and the defendant has already got the compensation for the same. He is also claiming enhanced compensation in accordance with law but the plaintiff-respondent, being his daughter wants to prejudice his rights Civil Rev. 1784 of 2009 2 on the basis of the Will dated 3.9.1986 claiming that her grand father bequeathed the property in dispute to her. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has submitted that the case is ripen for final arguments and that the plaintiff-respondent does not want any additional issue on the basis of the amendment sought for and allowed. The plaintiff-respondent does not want to lead any type of evidence in context to the amendment by leading any evidence in the shape of affirmative evidence or in the shape of rebuttal evidence. He has also given an undertaking that the plaintiff will not seek any adjournment in order to substantiate the pleas further in any manner and would be contended with the evidence already produced. He has also assured that the plaintiff has got no intention to delay the proceedings and has given an undertaking that the matter can be finally argued before the trial court as and when required by the trial court without seeking any advantage of the amendment for the purpose of adjournment. I have considered the facts and circumstances of this case. The amended provisions of CPC vide amendment 22 of 2002 will not be applicable in the present case as the suit had been filed on 16.2.2000. No prejudice seems to have been caused to the defendant by permitting the amendment especially when the plaintiff does not seek production of any additional evidence or framing of any additional issues. In case the plaintiff-respondent does not have any cause of action or good case on merits, as claimed by the learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner, the same has to be adjudicated on merits but the amendment allowed by the trial court will not affect the rights of the parties. So far as the description Civil Rev. 1784 of 2009 3 of the property is concerned, it has been just clarified and not changed. Whether any additional relief on the basis of the findings on all the issues deserves to be given to the plaintiff-respondent or not has to be considered on merits. In view of the above, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. However, this order will not prejudice the right of the defendant- petitioner to file amended written statement, if so advised. July 23 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE