IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.4315 of 2007 Date of Decision:- 27.03.2008 Ashok Kumar and another LRs of Raghbiri ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Namit Sharma, Advocate vs. Smt.Bhullan and another ....Respondent(s) through Mr.Sanjay Verma, Advocate. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.7.2007 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Panipat whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed on various grounds including that the same was moved at a belated stage. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The petitioner-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession to the extent of ¼th share in the joint holding, as prescribed in the head-note of the plaint. They also sought a declaration to set aside mutation No.2867 regarding inheritance of the suit land sanctioned in favour of the respondent-defendant. It appears that when the suit was ripe for final arguments, the petitioner-plaintiffs moved the amendment application so as to incorporate C.R. No.4315 of 2007 -2- the consequential relief of setting aside the other mutations as well sanctioned in favour of the respondent-defendant qua some other khasra numbers. The said application, however, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition. It is well settled that if the facts and circumstances of the case so permit, the amendment of the pleadings can be allowed at any stage. In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioners states at the Bar that the amendment is formal in nature and is sought as a consequential relief to the main relief already prayed for. In other words, he undertakes that the petitioner-plaintiffs shall not press for framing any additional issue nor shall obviously lead any additional evidence. It also appears that the additional relief sought by the petitioners by way of amendment being a consequential relief, would avoid multiplicity of litigation between the parties. Consequently and for the reasons aforestated, this revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 28.7.2007 is set aside and the petitioner-plaintiffs are permitted to place the amended plaint on record of the learned trial Court, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2500/- to the respondent-defendant. It is made clear that no additional issue shall be framed nor the petitioner-plaintiffs shall be permitted to lead any additional evidence. The respondent-defendant, if so desires, shall be granted only one opportunity to file the amended written statement. Dasti. March 27, 2008 (SURYA KANT) poonam JUDGE