IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4748 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 30.7.2010 Sohan Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Parminder Singh etc. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.18865-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.4748 of 2010 This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 18.5.2010 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib whereby his application for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner is an illiterate person and is not well conversant with the intricacies of law and it was the duty of his counsel to make necessary and proper pleadings whereas his counsel has failed in his duty and that is why he had to change his counsel and therefore, he has made an application for necessary amendment and in these circumstances the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer due to the negligence on the part of his counsel and is entitled for the amendment as prayed for. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, however, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. CR No.4748 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The ground taken by the petitioner before this Court to challenge the impugned order has not been taken in the application for amendment and therefore, the same cannot be considered. Moreover, in the impugned order, the trial Court has clearly mentioned that the petitioner knew about the defect in his suit from the very beginning as the defendant- respondents had taken objections in their written statement with regard to the vagueness of the plaint. In spite of that the petitioner failed to carry out necessary amendments and now when the suit is fixed for final arguments, the instant application has been moved. As per the record, the pleadings in this case were complete and issues were framed on 19.11.2004. However, after availing 9 opportunities, the evidence of the petitioner was closed on 10.4.2007 and thereafter, the defendants were called upon to lead evidence which was concluded on 25.2.2008 and the case is posted for rebuttal evidence, if any, and arguments. From the aforesaid facts on record, which are not disputed, it is clearly made out that the amendments sought by the petitioner at the fag end is nothing but to delay the trial. No merits. Dismissed. July 30, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE