C.R. No.2200 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2200 of 2009. Decided on August 03, 2009. Ram Chander Shehzada. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Raman B. Garg, Advocate, with Mr.Pawan Khattak, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Jindal, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner-plaintiff is a retired Head Clerk from the office of Civil Surgeon. He had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to rendition of account with respect to fixation of his pay from 7100/- to 7250/- w.e.f., 01.04.1997 to 01.04.1998, as he was getting scale of Rs.1640-2900/- and had drawn his pay at Rs.2300/- in old scale before retirement and that he is entitled to get his promotion in the scale of 525-1050, when his junior was . . . 1 C.R. No.2200 of 2009 promoted. His suit was dismissed. During the pendency of appeal, he filed an application for addition of his junior as well as Accountant General, Haryana, as defendant-respondent Nos.4 & 5, besides seeking an amendment in his plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Vide impugned order, the said application has been dismissed in context to the amended Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which does not permit the amendment of the pleadings after commencement of the trial. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the amendment in CPC, was incorporated w.e.f., 01.07.2002 whereas, the plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit originally on 08.12.2000, as such, the provisions of amended CPC, would not be applicable. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the facts and circumstances of this case. Even, if it is presumed that the amended provisions of CPC, will not be retrospectively effective, still the amendment at a belated stage cannot be permitted to add two new defendants and through additional paragraphs which are sought to be added during the pendency of the appeal. Permitting the petitioner to amend the plaint will tantamount to de novo trial. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendments sought for are only in the nature of clarification as in replication the plea had been taken and issue Nos.1 & 2, pertaining to the relief sought for by the petitioner had already been framed. I have considered the said contention and I'm of the opinion that if the petitioner does not want to lead any evidence and . . . 2 C.R. No.2200 of 2009 the plea in the replication is already there, it will always be open to the petitioner to raise the questions of law and fact at the time of arguments. No ground is made out for interference in the impugned order. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, dismissal of this revision petition will not debar the petitioner to take up the pleas which already form part of the pleadings and on which the parties are already at issue. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 03, 2009. rka . . . 3