CR. No. 3679 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3679 of 2009 Date of decision:- 1.11.2010 Bhan Singh and another ......petitioners vs. Charan Singh and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Plaintiffs are in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 9.3.2009, whereby learned trial Court dismissed the application for amendment of the plaint so as to incorporate the challenge to the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1999 passed by learned first Appellate Court. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.7.1995. Defendants have averred that the said judgment and decree dated 24.7.1995 has been affirmed by learned first Appellate Court on 21.7.1999. The application for amendment has been declined by learned trial Court on the ground that the application has been filed after delay and latches and such application has been filed when the case has been fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that CR. No. 3679 of 2009 -2- judgment and decree dated 24.7.1995 of the learned trial Court stands merged in judgment and decree dated 21.7.1999 and that amendment is only consequential in nature arising out of averments made by defendants in the written statement. It is pointed out that the plaintiffs were not party to the said decree, therefore, they was not aware of the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1999. The decree under challenge in the suit, had been affirmed in an appeal. It is a consequential amendment which is sought by the plaintiffs so as to include the challenge to the said judgment and decree passed by learned first Appellate Court. Such amendment does not necessitate the reframing of issues nor the amendment sought alters the cause of action. Therefore, the orders passed by learned trial Court declining the amendment sought in the plaint suffers from patent illegality or material irregularity which cannot be sustained in law. It causes substantial injustice to the petitioners. In view of the said facts, revision is allowed and the order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. Plaintiffs-petitioners are permitted to amend the plaint as sought for. Revision stands allowed accordingly. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 1.11.2010 preeti