Civil Revision No. 4570 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4570 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Harnam Singh .....Petitioner Versus Shamsher Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sushil Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 14.5.2010, whereby two applications filed by the petitioner-plaintiff i.e. one for impleading Baljit Singh son of Daya Singh, as defendant and another under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amending the plaint, were dismissed. By way of the Civil Suit, the plaintiff has challenged sale deed dated 15.9.2003 executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 on the ground that the said sale deed is illegal & void, without any consideration and without legal necessity. Civil Revision No. 4570 of 2010 (O&M) [2] Baljit Singh son of Daya Singh is said to have purchased the land in dispute vide sale deed dated 6.1.2010. The petitioner sought impleadment of said Baljit Singh as defendant and also sought to incorporate the challenge to the aforesaid sale. Vide the order impugned, the learned trial Court dismissed the said applications on the ground that at this stage if the applications are allowed, the same would delay the trial as the plaintiff has availed several opportunities, but has not led evidence. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 states that he has no objection if the subsequent purchaser i.e. Baljit Singh son of Daya Singh is impleaded as party-defendant. Still further, since the amendment sought in the plaint i.e. challenge to the sale effected by defendants in favour of Baljit Singh son of Daya Singh, is a subsequent event after filing of the suit, therefore, it would be in the interest of justice, if the plaintiff is allowed to amend the plaint as prayed for. In view of the said fact, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The applications for impleadment of Baljit Singh son of Daya Singh as party-defendant and the application for amendment are allowed, as prayed for. [HEMANT GUPTA] JUDGE 09-08-2010 ds