C.R.No.771 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.771 of 2009 Date of Decision : 13.07.2009 Sohan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Kanwar, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 16.1.2009, whereby, the application for amendment of the plaint so as to raise claim of damages on account of non-issuance of discharge certificate, was dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner filed suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to discharge certificate having discharged on 31.8.1969. The said suit was filed on 18.7.2002 after the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek his remedy from the Civil Court. The plaintiff sought amendment in the plaint so as to claim damages to the extent of Rs.10 lac by filing an application for amendment on 9.9.2006. The learned trial Court declined the said application on the ground that the plaintiff has concluded his evidence and in terms of proviso to Rule 17 Order 6 of the CPC, no application for amendment C.R.No.771 of 2009 2 shall be allowed after trial is commenced. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that in the writ petition, the plaintiff has claimed damages but while filing suit on 18.7.2002 the plaintiff has not claimed damages. It is contended that the plaintiff was discharged in the year 1969 and has sought the issuance of the discharge certificate by way of suit in the year 2002. Still the application for amendment of the plaint so as to claim damages has been filed in the year 2006 i.e. after more than four years after the filing of the suit and, therefore, examining from any angle, the application is beyond the period of limitation as well. The reasoning given by the learned trial Court that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to amend the plaint as trial has commenced cannot be said to be illegal or unwarranted. Even otherwise, the plaintiff has sought damages after four years of filing of the suit and more than 35 years of discharge. Such claim is clearly beyond the period of limitation as well. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 13.07.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE