Civil Revision No. 5697 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5697 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:07.09.2010 Mahinder Singh & Ors. .... petitioners Versus Raj Kaur .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shikha Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiffs' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 29.07.2010, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from dispossessing the petitioners from the suit land on the averments that petitioners as well as respondent are co-sharers in the suit land as per jamabandi for the year 2005-06 and the petitioners were in peaceful possession to the extent of their share out of joint khata for the last many years and the defendant-respondent is trying to dispossess the petitioners Civil Revision No. 5697 of 2010(O & M) 2 from the suit land and to interfere into their peaceful possession illegally, forcibly and without due course of law. Respondent filed written statement admitting the fact that parties to the suit are co-sharers in the suit land. However, it was denied that petitioners were in possession of the suit land. It was further submitted by the respondent in the written statement that the suit was not maintainable as no suit for permanent injunction lies against a co-sharer. Issues in the suit were framed on 02.09.2008. Petitioners moved an application dated 13.02.2009 (Annexure P-4) for amendment in the plaint submitting that while engaging their advocate, they had briefed him with regard to each and every fact of the case. However, their counsel did not mention true facts in the plaint and instead, mentioned all the wrong facts for the reasons best known to him and therefore necessity arose to file the present application for amendment in the plaint. It was also pleaded that the amendment sought to be made is only to elaborate the pleas taken in the pleadings to justify their possession over the suit land by alleging that the petitioners and respondent are not co-sharers and the suit land was partitioned between their predecessors-in-interest and thus they be allowed to amend the plaint. The aforesaid application was contested by the respondent by filing reply wherein it was stated that if the petitioners were allowed to take the pleas by way of amendment, the nature of the suit will change as the petitioners want to take wholly a contradictory/fresh stand in the amended plaint through the alleged amendment. The aforesaid application filed by the petitioners was rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the plea sought to be raised by way of proposed amendment is to elaborate the pleas taken in the earlier Civil Revision No. 5697 of 2010(O & M) 3 pleadings and the same does not mean that the petitioners were introducing a new case. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that it is settled law that amendment in the nature of clarification and elaboration of facts already pleaded, is permissible and, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. It was further argued that evidence is yet to start and no prejudice was going to be caused to the respondent in case the proposed amendment is allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the impugned order and the other documents placed on record of this revision petition. A perusal of the plaint(Annexure P-1) filed by the petitioners would show that the petitioners have taken a specific stand that they as well as respondent are co-sharers in the suit land and they are in possession to the extent of their share and the respondent is trying to dispossess them from the suit land, forcibly and illegally. Further perusal of the application seeking amendment(Annexure P-4) would show that by way of proposed amendment the petitioners want to introduce wholly a new plea to the effect that the suit land stood partitioned at the time of consolidation of the land and they were in possession of the suit land on the basis of the aforesaid partition and respondent has nothing to do with the suit land. The plea taken in the amendment application cannot in any way be termed as clarificatory in nature, sought for further elaboration of the earlier pleadings. Moreover, it is the petitioners' own case that the respondent has been shown as co-sharer in the column of ownership in the revenue record. Moreover, in the present suit, the petitioners are seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering in their possession. The only issue which arises is whether the petitioners are in possession of the suit land or not. Amendment of the plaint to detail Civil Revision No. 5697 of 2010(O & M) 4 as to how the plaintiffs/petitioners had come in possession, is not a fact which go to the root of dispute between the parties in the present suit. If the petitioners are found to be in possession of the suit land to the exclusion of other co-sharers, they will be entitled to the relief of permanent injunction to protect their possession in accordance with law. Thus, no interference of this Court is called in the impugned order. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 07.09.2010 neenu