Civil Revision No. 3490 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 3490 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.5.2010 Santosh Kumar Gupta ..... Petitioner vs Varinder Kumar ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition to the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that plaintiff filed a suit on 24.3.2006 for declaration to the effect that the alleged agreement dated 7.3.2004 is illegal, for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to hand over the charge of the firm M/s Ganesh Traders working in the new shop shown in the site plan attached with the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling the goods/articles of the aforesaid firm. Upon notice, the defendant/respondent filed written statement and counter claim. However, during the pendency thereof, the petitioner filed application under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action stating that there were certain technical defects therein. The application was dismissed on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, the application for amendment of the plaint was filed which was dismissed on 29.3.2010. The suit was filed way back in 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought to be made by the plaintiff in the suit is required for proper adjudication of the matter. The delay in filing the application should not come in the way for grant of substantial justice. The petitioner only wanted to explain certain facts which have already been mentioned in the plaint and the same would not change the nature of the suit. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Civil Revision No. 3490 of 2010 -2- The learned court below while dismissing the application has noticed that almost all the facts sought to be mentioned by way of amendment are already mentioned in the plaint. Even otherwise, the petitioner had not been able to establish his plea that despite due diligence he could not have brought those facts in the plaint as all of them pertain to the period prior to filing of the suit. In fact, the proposed amendment is in the form of explanation of certain facts which are already stated in the plaint. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 24.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge