Civil Rev. 4914 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH Civil Rev. 4914 of 2008 Date of decision: 4.8.2009 Basheshar Nath Petitioner vs State of Haryana and others Respondent Present Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for Mr. DK Bhatti, Advocate Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Addl.A.G.Hry Mr. Raman B Garg, Advocate for respondent No.4 M.M.S.BEDI,J. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed this revision petition against order dated 22..8.2008 passed by the learned Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.D.), Panchkula dismissing his application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondents from installing an iron gate of Civil Hospital, Kalka at point C to D as shown in blue colour in the site plaint, attached with the plaint, in front of the shop of the plaintiff situated at Railway Road, Kalka, District Panchkula. The injunction had also been sought against defendant-respondents from blocking the passage to the shop of the plaintiff illegally and forcibly at the above said point C to D. The said suit was filed on 16.7.2008. The plaintiff wanted to convert his suit into a suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendant- Civil Rev. 4914 of 2008 2 respondents to demolish the wall, alleged to have been constructed during the intervening night of 17/18 July, 2008 as the wall up to the height of 8 feet had been constructed after the filing of the suit. The claim of the defendant-respondents is that the wall already existed when the plaintiff had filed the suit. The trial court has dismissed the application for amendment inter alia on the ground that the construction of the wall has been raised by the defendants prior to the filing of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner as well as counsel for the defendant-respondents. The plaintiff- petitioner has filed an application for amendment claiming that the wall in dispute had been raised on the property, which is subject matter of the suit on the intervening night of 17/18 July,2008. Permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaint will not take away the right of the defendant-respondents to still allege and establish that the plaintiff- petitioner is taking a wrong plea and that the wall already existed on the day when he filed the suit. The allowing of amendment will not, in any manner, confer any additional right to the plaintiff and will also not prejudice the right of the defendant-respondents to fairly contest the plea, taken by the plaintiff. The court while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is not required to minutely consider whether the facts, which are sought to be incorporated are true or false when the amendment is sought for at the initial stage i.e. before the commencement of the trial. Since the case is at initial stage and issues are yet to be framed, the amendment will not hamper the determination of real question of controversy between the parties. In view of the above, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 22.8.2008 is hereby set aside and it is ordered that the application for amendment of the plaintiff will be allowed subject to Civil Rev. 4914 of 2008 3 payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- , to be distributed equally amongst the defendants. The respondents will be at liberty to rebut the claim of the plaintiff that the wall had not been constructed after the filing of the suit. July ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE