SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision : February 23, 2010 Haryana Urban Development Authority ...Appellant versus Lakhwinder Singh & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI Present : Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) C.M. No.1348-C-2010 For the reasons recorded, civil miscellaneous application is allowed and delay of 17 days in filing the Second Appeal is condoned. Main Case This appeal has been filed against the order of lower Appellate Court, whereby after allowing the amendments in the plaint SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) 2 (in Appeal) the judgment of the trial Court has been set aside and the matter remanded for fresh trial. The respondent had filed a civil suit challenging notices for resumption. During the pendency of the suit the resumption order was passed. One of the plea of the appellant is that the suit is barred under Section 50 of HUDA Act, 1977. The trial Court dismissed the suit in appeal. The respondent moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for seeking amendment in the plaint to challenge the order dated 22nd August, 1996. As mentioned above that application was allowed and the matter remanded back. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the suit itself was not maintainable and that by the impugend order the respondent has been able to prolong the litigation. He further argues that this amendment sought after more than 11 years was barred by delay & latches. As regards the second argument the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly found that the respondent had challenged the whole process and that if the amendments were not permitted it would cause greater prejudice to the respondent and consequently allowed the amendments, since, it was only consequential action of resumption which was sought to be impugned. However, as regards the remand, it is not in dispute that no further evidence has to be led. Learned counsel for the SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) 3 respondent has stated that after the remand the amended plaint has been filed as well as the amended written statement. In my opinion, the purpose of remand is over and it would be in the interest of justice if on these amended pleadings the appeal is decided. Consequently the remand is set aside and the learned lower Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal along with all amended pleadings. With this observation this appeal is disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 23, 2010 vcgarg SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) 4 SAO NO.3 of 2010(O&M) 5