C.R.No.6252 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6252 of 2007. Decided on August 04, 2009. Mohan Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS Buta Singh and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Atul Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Baljinder Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner-plaintiff has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 23.07.2007, dismissing the application of the petitioner- plaintiff to amend the plaint in a suit for separate possession of 1/6th share by way of partition by metes and bounds of a house which was allegedly owned by his father Mela Singh. By way of the application, the petitioner-plaintiff wants to plead that the plaintiff has come to learn after filing of the suit that Mela Singh had obtained loan on the . . . 1 C.R.No.6252 of 2007 site of house in dispute from Low Income Group Housing Scheme of Deputy Commissioner Office, Kapurthala, in the year 1959 and Mela Singh had furnished security bond for obtaining loan of Rs.3,000/-, in favour of said Department which was got registered on 30.03.1959. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that some application for leading additional evidence to produce above mentioned security bond had also been filed which was dismissed. The short question which is required to be determined in the present case is, whether the amendment sought for by the petitioner is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, in the light of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. I have also considered the other circumstances of this case. Without expression of any opinion, whether the application for sanction of loan; mortgage of the land in dispute; and the registration of the mortgage deed is relevant being a fact in issue, it is sufficient to observe that defendant Bhagat Singh, the real brother of the petitioner-plaintiff has already appeared as a witness as DW.2. He has already placed on record, certified copy of order regarding sanction of loan as EX.D1; the mortgage deed dated 23.03.1959, in favour of Government of Punjab, registered on 30.03.1959, with Sub-Registrar, Kapurthala, as EX.D2, along with site plan EX.D3. The documents which have already come on the record and stand impliedly admitted by pleadings and conduct of the . . . 2 C.R.No.6252 of 2007 parties, are not required to be incorporated again in the pleadings of the petitioner-plaintiff. In case the said documents are necessary for deciding the controversy amongst the parties, these would certainly be taken into consideration by the trial Court. In view of the above circumstances, there is no ground for interference in the impugned order dismissing the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for amendment of his plaint. The revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE August 04, 2009. rka . . . 3