C.R No.4047 of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.4047 of 2010 Date of decision: 3.3.2011. Banarsi Dass .............Petitioner v Principal, Vaish Technical Institute, Rohtak and others ..............Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.P.S Ahluwalia, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Punjab for respondent Nos.3 & 4. Jaswant Singh,J Plaintiff-petitioner has preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rohtak whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction challenging the impugned letter and order dated 28.11.2001 and 3.9.2003 whereby it was held by the defendants-respondents that the institute is unable to allow crossing C.R No.4047 of 2010 #2# of Efficiency Bar to the plaintiff-petitioner w.e.f 1.1.2000 as he is not fulfilling the minimum qualification for the post of Lab Attendant. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of his plaint. Notice of the same was issued to the respondents and reply of the same was filed and after hearing both the sides, application has been dismissed, hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. There is no dispute that in the civil suit No.96 dated 28.7.2004, the plaintiff has challenged the action of the defendants- respondents for not allowing him to cross the Efficiency Bar whereas in the application for amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner wishes to challenge the order dated 21.5.2004 vide which the management of defendants-respondent Nos.1 & 2 in its 53rd meeting held on 9.4.2004 has approved the withdrawal of certain undue benefits conferred upon the plaintiff-petitioner. There is no dispute that the order dated 21.5.2004 is regarding the withdrawal of certain benefits granted to the plaintiff-petitioner and is not related to the cross of efficiency bar, which is the subject matter in the civil suit. This is also not in dispute that the order dated 21.5.2004 was conveyed to the plaintiff through office letter dated 21.5.2004 and the plaintiff- petitioner has signed as token of receipt of the said order. The civil suit was filed on 28.7.2004 and therefore, he could have challenged the C.R No.4047 of 2010 #3# same by incorporating these facts in the civil suit. Admittedly, in the present suit, both the parties have concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any and arguments when the present application was filed. Facts discussed hereinabove reveal that plaintiff-petitioner has not shown any diligence much less to say the due diligence while challenging the order dated 21.5.2004 and the learned trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the same will give rise to the de novo trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Division), Rohtak warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. 3.3.2011. (Jaswant Singh) manoj Judge