C.R. No.5325 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.5325 of 2006 Date of Decision: 4.2.2008 Didar Singh and others .....Petitioners Vs. Punna Singh and others ...Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.N. Moudgil, Advocate for respondent no.1. ... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision nos.5325 and 5337 of 2006, as they involve a similar dispute. During the pendency of the suit and at the stage of arguments, the respondents-plaintiffs filed an application, praying for amendment of the plaint to incorporate a plea that they were bonafide purchasers for consideration from Narinder Singh s/o Karam Singh. The land purchased by them was not subject matter of the Court auction or the earlier litigation,which has attained finality upto the Supreme Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. The trial Court after considering the prayer for amendment, recorded an opinion that the prayer for amendment at this belated stage of arguments, did not pass the test of due diligence. Thereafter, instead of dismissing the application, the trial Court proceeded to pass an order C.R. No.5325 of 2006 2 granting liberty to the petitioners to amend the plaint, on the reasoning that the amendment sought was merely clarificatory and the plaintiffs had offered not to lead any fresh evidence or recall any witness but would only tender documents. The impugned order is incomprehensible. After recording a conclusion that the prayer for amendment was not tenable, the learned trial Court should have forthwith dismissed the application. However, impressed by the offer of the petitioner, not to lead fresh evidence or to recall any witness, the trial Court allowed the application for amendment. The jurisdiction to allow an amendment does not depend upon an offer by the applicant, to desist from leading evidence or recalling any witness. Even otherwise, the amendments claimed were covered by the earlier litigation, initiated by Karam Singh and his successors and has attained finality upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, the present revision petitions are allowed. The order dated 25.9.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurdaspur, is set aside. Any observations as to the merits of the present controversy, shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 4.2.2008 ( RAJIVE BHALLA ) GS JUDGE