IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.24319-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.5976 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision 15.10.2009 Satpal and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS Smt.Sawaran Devi and others ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the order dated 25.07.2009, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, dismissing the application of the petitioner- plaintiff (herein referred as 'the petitioner') under Order 1 Rule 10 (4) C.P.C., he has preferred this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that his prayer for adding defendant No.3 as party-contestant in the suit was allowed on 29.08.2006. Thereafter, he had filed the amended title to the suit in the Court. However, the Court has disallowed vide order dated 25.07.2009. The Order 1 Rule 10 (4) C.P.C. envisages that in case the Court permits the plaintiff to add defendant then unless the Court otherwise directs, the plaint shall be amended in such manner as may be necessary, amended copies of the summons and of the plaint shall be served on the new defendant and if the Court thinks fit, on the original defendant. It appears that when application of the plaintiff for adding the defendant is allowed then to file the necessary amendment in the plaint is allowed by implication. Resultantly, this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the trial Court is directed to proceed in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save huge expenses which may be incurred by the respondent(s) as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. If, still dissatisfied, the respondent(s) may move this Court for recalling this order. 15.10.2009 (A.N.Jindal) mamta-II Judge