Civil Revision No. 6668 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6668 of 2009 Date of decision : November 30, 2010 Avtar Singh ....Petitioner versus Mohan Singh and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. CL Sharma, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 and 2 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff No. 1 Avtar Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 12.10.2009, Annexure P/4 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur thereby dismissing application Annexure P/1 for amendment of plaint. Petitioner and proforma respondents no. 3 to 5 have filed suit against respondents no. 1 and 2 regarding land of khasra no. 275/1 which has also been described by boundaries and has also been depicted in red colour by letters ABCD in site plan Ex. P2 by the plaintiffs. By amendment the plaintiffs want to delete the description of Civil Revision No. 6668 of 2009 -2- the suit property of khasra no. 275/1 by way of boundaries and as depicted in the site plan and want to retain the description by way of khasra no. 275/1 only. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 contested the amendment application and pleaded that plaintiffs cannot by amendment of plaint withdraw their admission that suit property shown in red colour by letters ABCD in site plan Ex. P2 is of khasra no. 275/1. The amendment application has been moved after plaintiff no. 2 appeared in the witness box and admitted that suit property depicted in the plan and described by boundaries is of khasra no. 275/1. This description was added by way of amendment which was allowed vide order dated 20.2.2009. Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/4 dismissed plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint. Feeling dissatisfied, plaintiff no. 1 has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that description of suit property by khasra no. 275/1 is sufficient to identify the suit property and therefore, the plaintiffs should be permitted to delete the description of suit property by boundaries and by way of site plan. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2/defendants contended that by proposed amendment, plaintiffs want to withdraw their admission regarding description of suit property by boundaries and site plan being the same as of khasra no. 275/1 and therefore, proposed amendment has been rightly declined by the trial court. Civil Revision No. 6668 of 2009 -3- I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Plaintiff no. 2 appeared in the witness box and admitted that disputed plot depicted in red colour by letters ABCD in site plan Ex. P2 is of khasra no. 275/1. It is not explained why the plaintiffs now want to delete the description of suit land by boundaries and by way of site plan. The obvious inference is that this is being done with some malafide intention and oblique motive. On the contrary, the plaintiff by amendment cannot be permitted to withdraw the aforesaid admission that disputed plot comprised of khasra no. 275/1 has been depicted in the site plan and described by boundaries. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs if the said description is allowed to subsist in the suit whereas defendants would suffer prejudice if aforesaid admission of the plaintiffs is allowed to be withdrawn by amendment. There is no justification for permitting proposed amendment. On the contrary, the description of the suit property was added by amendment of plaint and consequently, it cannot be said that the said description was made inadvertently as now alleged in the amendment application. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'