CR No.3365 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3365 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 12-10-2010 Tarsem Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS Charanjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Sherry K Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate for Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 6 Ms. Avtar Kaur, Advocate for respondent no.10. MAHESH GROVER, J After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the grievance as made out by the petitioner merits acceptance. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.4.2010 vide which his amendments to the plaint have been declined in the suit for specific performance. The petitioner due to inadvertence failed to pray for the relief of possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell. Another amendment sought for is that land which is subject matter of the agreement to sell was attached in execution proceedings. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the amendments which have been sought for, by the CR No.3365 of 2010 (O&M) 2 petitioner are not at variance with the pleadings in the main suit. They neither alter the nature of the suit nor introduce any new cause of action and are in consonance with the earlier pleadings and same have probably been left out due to inadvertence. Therefore taking notice of the aforesaid facts cumulatively, the present petition cannot be termed to be malicious exercise and the same is allowed. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and as a consequence thereof the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amendments which have been sought for by way of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. October 12, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge