Civil Revision No. 5833 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5833 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 30th, 2011 Balwan Singh .... Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Garg, AAG, Haryana, for the respondent-State. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. Balwan Singh, petitioner-plaintiff has challenged the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat by way this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The plaintiff brought a suit for declaration to the effect that the orders dated 31.7.2002 and 10.12.2006 of Superintendent of Police, Sonepat and dated 25.1.2006 passed by Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, are illegal and liable to be set-aside and for mandatory injunction directing the respondents-defendants to cross the Civil Revision No. 5833 of 2011 2 .. efficiency bar of the plaintiff and to remove the adverse remarks recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports. By way of amendment, the plaintiff sought to supplement the prayer clause by adding the following paragraph :- “(i). The illegal and arbitrary order of respondent having PP No. 335-36 dated 22.7.2003 for inflicting a penalty of stoppage the five annual increment of the plaintiff with permanent is illegal, null and void. And It is further prayed that decree for mandatory injunction be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant by directing the respondent to release all the five annual increments w.e.f. their due dates and to cross the efficiency bar of plaintiff and further directions be issued to the respondents to remove the adverse remarks mentioned in the ACRs of the plaintiff. Any other relief which the Ld. Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the plaintiff.” The application had been opposed by the defendants, who have claimed that the application was barred by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as the same had been sought after the commencement of the trial. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application for the reason that the trial of the suit was at the fag end and the amendment would require the whole case to be reopened. It was also held that the amendment is also barred by the Civil Revision No. 5833 of 2011 3 .. proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. I have heard Mr. Navneet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kunal Garg, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. I have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relief sought is not new to the plaint. According to him, the foundation for the relief has already been laid in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint, which is on the record as Annexure P1. He has submitted that relief could be granted by the court even without there being specific mention of the same in the relief clause if the necessary facts on which the same could be allowed are there in the plaint. He has further submitted that this amendment would not reopen the case because no issue is required to be framed on the same nor the petitioner-plaintiff would lead any evidence in support of the same. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana has submitted, on the other hand, that issues in this case were framed in the year 2008 and this application has been made when the last opportunity had been granted to the defendants for their evidence. According to him, the whole case would be reopened by this amendment. It is true that the amendment has been sought in this case after the commencement of the trial and so, the plaintiff has to satisfy the court that this plea could not be raised inspite of due diligence before commencement of the trial. However, in the case in hand, no new plea is sought to be added. The additional relief is sought on the strength of the averments made in paragraph No. 5 of the plaint and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot be held to be introducing a change in his claim. In a way, Civil Revision No. 5833 of 2011 4 .. it can be said that no amendment, which is prohibited by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been sought in this case. This is a case of just rectifying a bonafide error. Apart from rectifying bonafide errors, even a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which no enquiry/proof was required, was held permissible to be raised at any stage of the proceedings by Hon`ble Supreme Court of India in The National Textile Corporation Limited Vs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad and others 2011(2) RCR (Rent) 293. It is moreover, not correct to say that this amendment sought to supplement the relief clause would reopen the case. The last opportunity had been granted to the defendants and not to the plaintiff and so, it cannot be said that with a view to circumvent the evil consequences of non production of evidence, this application has been made. For all these reasons, I find that the amendment in this case was required to be allowed. Therefore, the impugned order dated 26.8.2011 passed by learned trial court is not sustainable. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed and the impugned order is set-aside. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE November 30th, 2011 som