CR No. 6357 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6357 of 2011 Date of decision:29.11.2011 Tarlok Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Charan Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the petitioners ***** Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 12.8.2011, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nakodar, whereby the application under Order VI, Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the plaint, was allowed. The brief facts of the case are that defendants/respondents filed a suit for grant of decree of separate possession by way of partition of the suit land, in which the learned Trial court issued notice to the opposite party, upon which the petitioner/defendants filed their written statement. The learned trial court framed the issues and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiffs. But the respondents/plaintiffs moved an application under CR No. 6357 of 2011 2 Order VI Rule 17 of the Code for amendment of the plaint to the effect that head note of the plaint be amended to the extent that total area of Khasra number is 5 Kanals 18 Marlas, out of which, 3 Kanals 18 Marlas is constructed, which was allowed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 12.8.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the application is not maintainable. He further contends that the plaintiffs by way of this amendment, intends to incorporate the agricultural land, which is under cultivation and the same cannot be partitioned by the Civil Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the case file. From the perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the same plea was taken by the defendant-petitioner in his written statement. But the learned trial court while allowing the application of the plaintiff- respondents has observed as under:- “I am of the considered view that this Khasra number measuring 5 Kanals 18 Marlas is ought to be partitioned in its entirety and even if two kanals out of it, is not under construction at present does not mean that it cannot be partitioned alongwith rest of the plot, which is under construction. Moreover, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants, if the entire khasra number is partitioned. And therefore, plaintiffs are allowed to amend the relevant facts in the plaint. Accordingly, the present application under consideration is allowed subject to CR No. 6357 of 2011 3 payment of Rs.500/-. Amended head note is already on the file.” The controversy as to whether a civil court cannot partition the land assessed to land revenue and is agricultural land, is to be decided after framing of issues, leading of evidence by both the parties and while deciding the case on merits. There is no illegality in exercising its jurisdiction or any material irregularity in passing the impugned order by the civil judge. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present revision petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed in limine. 29.11.2011 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) gsv JUDGE