C. R. No. 4205 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 4205 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : July 23, 2010 Rohtash and another .... Petitioners Vs. Shanti Devi and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. D. Achint, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 17971-C-II of 2010 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Plaintiffs have approached this Court by way of instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 30.03.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, thereby dismissing plaintiffs' application for amendment of plaint. Plaintiffs have filed suit seeking declaration that they are C. R. No. 4205 of 2010 (O&M) 2 owners in possession of the suit land and that decree dated 12.02.1987 is fraudulent and nullity. Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit land has also been claimed. By moving amendment application (Annexure P-2), plaintiffs want to add the relief of possession and joint possession of the suit land. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners only want to add the relief of possession or joint possession by way of amendment, and therefore, the proposed amendment should be allowed. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of original plaint (Annexure P-1) reveals that the plaintiffs claim themselves to be co-owners in possession to the extent of 1/12th share in the land in question. Even in the declaration sought, the plaintiffs seek to be declared as owners in possession of the land in question. The plaintiffs, while asserting themselves to be in possession of the suit land as co-owners, cannot be permitted to seek the relief of possession or joint possession. Even by amendment, the plaintiffs do not seek to aver that they had been dispossessed from the suit land or they are not in possession thereof. Consequently, the plaintiffs, while asserting themselves to be in possession of the suit land, cannot be permitted to claim the relief of possession or joint possession of the suit land. The proposed amendment is thus completely C. R. No. 4205 of 2010 (O&M) 3 misconceived and untenable. For the reasons recorded herein above, there is no merit in the instant revision petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 23, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE