IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 32 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.03.2011 M/S Jerath Electronics & Allied …. Petitioners Industries Pvt. Ltd. and another Versus Union of India and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Mohan Singh vice Mr. B.N. Misra, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Virender Singh Chauhan, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Senior Division), Shimla, vide which he had allowed the application of the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 3. It is clear from a perusal of the record that the present application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the respondents at the stage when the case was fixed for final arguments. By the proposed amendment of the plaint, the plaintiffs want to furnish the details of the amount outstanding as against the defendants for the period 1.7.1993 to 1.4.1999. The plaintiffs had already claimed the 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 amount for the period mentioned therein i.e. 1.7.1993 to 1.4.1999 and this fact could only be proved by leading evidence as to the details of the amount claimed by the plaintiffs and it is not necessary to give the break up now, which fact was required to be proved only by way of evidence. The only question for consideration as argued by the learned counsel for the respondent is as to what prejudice is going to be caused to the defendants by the present amendment, which was filed at a belated stage. It is not the only point to be considered. In case the proposed amendment is necessary, why the same has been sought only when the case has been concluded and both the parties have led their evidence. This fact was required to be proved from the evidence and now the details sought to be furnished by amendment of the plaint, were not necessary for the just decision of the case. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the present petition is allowed accordingly. The case shall go back to the learned trial Court, who shall dispose of the matter on priority basis. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 4th April, 2011. A copy of the order alongwith the record be sent to the learned trial Court. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Interim order shall also stand vacated. ( V.K. Ahuja ), March 14, 2011 Judge (BSS) 3 4