IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4543 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision : 12.08.2009 Pritam Singh ......Petitioner VERSUS Komal Singh and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Parminder Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.04.009, passed by Addl. District Judge, Moga whereby the application filed by the petitioner-appellant (herein referred as 'the petitioner') for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Since the Appellate Court while disposing of the application for amendment of the plaint has already opened the avenues to the petitioner for granting the relief if he succeeds in proving his claim and no further amendment was required. The relevant extract of the observations, passed by Appellate Court vide order dated 24.04.2009, are as under:- “It is a matter of record that the opposite party has taken the possession during the pendency of appeal. In case subsequent events happened during the pendency of appeal and at the time of disposal of appeal, it is found that there are merits in the appeal preferred by the applicants-appellants then the relief claimed by the appellants can always be modified accordingly. There is no need for applicants to amend the plaint on the basis Civil Revision No.4543 of 2009(O&M) -2- of order passed by the revenue agency vide which defendant No.1 took the possession of the suit land.” In other words, the Court wanted to convey that if it is found that the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit land during the pendency of the proceedings then the possession could be restored without any further amendment in the plaint. As such, no amendment was required to be made in the plaint. Disposed of accordingly. This petition is disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents with a view to impart complete justice to the parties and to save huge expenses which may be incurred by the respondents as also in order to avoid unnecessary delay in adjudication of the matter. If, still dissatisfied, the respondents may move this Court for recalling this order. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 12.08.2009 mamta-II