Civil Revision No.5261 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5261 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:30.08.2011 Mukhtiar Singh and others .....Petitioners Versus Mahender and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Mukhtiar Singh and others petitioner- plaintiffs (for brevity “the plaintiffs”) filed the suit (Annexure P1) and sought a decree for declaration to the effect that they are owners and in possession to the extent of their shares in the property in dispute, contrary revenue record and mutation bearing No.1473 dated 29.2.1964 are wrong, illegal, liable to be corrected and were not sanctioned in accordance with law, with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining Mahinder Singh and others respondent- defendants (for short “the defendants”) from alienating in any manner and forcibly dispossessing them (plaintiffs) from the suit property. 2. During the course of pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs moved an application (Annexure P2) for amendment of the plaint, so as to add certain additional facts, challenging the mutation bearing No.1473 and the other revenue record. 3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 17 refuted the prayer of the plaintiffs and Civil Revision No.5261 of 2011 (O&M) -2- filed the reply (Annexure P3), in which, it was claimed that the facts, now sought to be incorporated in the plaint by way of amendment, were already in the knowledge of the plaintiffs at the time of filing their suit. The amendment sought was termed to be vague and cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial. The defendants have denied all other allegations contained in the application (Annexure P2) and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application for amendment of plaint, by virtue of impugned order dated 8.8.2011 (Annexure P4). 5. The petitioner-plaintiffs did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P4) and preferred the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the proposed amendment is essential to clarify the facts, so, the trial Court committed an error in dismissing the application (Annexure P2) for amendment of plaint, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record and plaint (Annexure P1) that plaintiffs have already explained the facts in detail, challenging the mutation bearing No.1473 and the revenue record. It has been specifically mentioned in the plaint that the mutation was wrongly entered and the land was wrongly mutated in favour of Kaliya, Bhartu and Tale and the same was illegally incorporated in the subsequent jamabandi and revenue record. Whether the indicated mutation and revenue record are wrong and illegal, would be the moot point to be decided, during the course of trial by the trial Court, on the basis of evidence brought on record. 9. Having gone through the copy of plaint (Annexure P1) and other records, to me, the real controversy between the parties can effectively be Civil Revision No.5261 of 2011 (O&M) -3- adjudicated upon the existing pleadings of the parties. As all the essential facts have already been pleaded and there is no ambiguity in any manner in the plaint, therefore, to my mind, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application (Annexure P2) for amendment of plaint and recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant connection, by way of impugned order (Annexure P4). Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiffs. 11. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiffs is hereby dismissed as such. 12. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 30.08.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE