IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.260 of 2008. Date of decision: 4.3.2009. Bhagat Ram & Others …Petitioners Versus Bal Raj & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For Respondent 1&2: Mr.Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate. For Respondent-3: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The defendants have challenged an order passed by the learned trial Court allowing the application moved by the plaintiffs praying for amendment of the plaint. The learned Court, on the averments made in the application, allowed the amendment as prayed for. Learned counsel appearing for the defendants- petitioners has challenged the order on a number of grounds inter alia that the Court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment and that the amendment concludes the entire controversy and leaves nothing for trial. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The submission made by the learned counsel that learned trial Court had acted without jurisdiction in allowing the application for the amendment cannot be accepted. The Court has allowed the amendment within the settled parameters of law. On the second aspect, it is but clear that the observations made by the trial Court while allowing the application for amendment have been confined to that issue only and does not conclude the case of the parties on merits. The rights of the parties will be determined aliunde on all the findings arrived at on the basis of the evidence led on the settled issues. This petition is disposed of. CMP No.688 of 2008. Infructuous. March 4, 2009. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.