IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5618 of 2009 Date of Decision : 23.3.2010 Jasvir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Pirthi Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.N.Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Binderjit Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2 ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The instant revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2009 by which the amendment sought in the pleadings by the petitioner was declined. A suit was preferred by the petitioner and as per the plaint, which is on record as Annexure P-2, he pleaded that the revenue entries as appearing in the record are incorrect as his father's name is Baldev Singh son of Albel Singh but in the revenue record the same is mentioned as Gurdev Singh son of Albel Singh. He thus prayed that these entries by corrected. By way of amendment he wanted to incorporate para 2A which is reproduced as under :- “2A.That a new para 2A may be allowed to be added in the plaint as under :- C.R.No.5618 of 2009 -2- That plaintiff's father's name is Baldev Singh s/o Albel Singh but in the registered sale deed No.273 dated 24.4.1973 father's name of the plaintiff has been scribed as Gurdev Singh s/o Albel Singh and in fact father's name of plaintiff should have been written as Baldev Singh s/o Albel Singh instead of Gurdev Singh s/o Baldev Singh in the sale deed. Sale deed is liable to be corrected to the effect that plaintiff is son of Baldev Singh s/o Albel Singh instead of Gurdev Singh s/o Albel Singh.” The learned trial Court primarily declined the amendment on the ground that it was belated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he merely wanted to incorporate the plea which was clarificatory in nature. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 who has stated that the sale deed has not even been mentioned in the original plaint and therefore the instant application cannot be allowed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order for the simple reason that the petitioner has not pleaded anything about his being owner on the basis of sale deed. The original plaint is totally silent in this regard and by way of amendment he wanted to incorporate the plea which could have been considered clarificatory only if there would have been the basic plea in this regard. Having regard to the fact that the plaint is absolutely silent regarding his ownership on the basis of sale deed, the instant plea C.R.No.5618 of 2009 -3- cannot be permitted to be taken up by the petitioner which has been sought to be introduced by way of amendment. The sale deed has been mentioned to be of 1973 whereas in the suit he merely refers to the incorrect entries which have been crept in the year 2001-2002. For the reason that the pleadings are totally vague, the prayer for amendment as sought for by the petitioner cannot be permitted to be taken up. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 23.3.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss