CR No. 5777 of 2010 -1- ***** IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5777 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 09.09.2010 State Bank of India .......... Petitioner Versus Dharamshala Thekedaran & others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. I.P.S. Dobia, advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the order dated 8.5.2010, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Ambala City, vide which application moved by the appellant / respondent for amendment of grounds of appeal stands allowed. The appeal was filed by the respondent, wherein he used the intemperate language against the Court. On realizing the mistake, he moved an application to allow him to amend the grounds of appeal to correct intemperate language, used in the grounds of appeal. The amendment sought was allowed. On the second application for stay the learned Court granted stay subject to furnishing of adequate security. CR No. 5777 of 2010 -2- ***** Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order by contending that the learned appellate Court committed an error in allowing the amendment of grounds of appeal, after expiry of four years when he was already aware of the grounds to be taken against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. In support of the contention, that the learned appellate Court could not have allowed the amendment of grounds of appeal, placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in the cases of Smt. Urmila Devi Vs. Nar Singh and others 2005(1) RCR (Civil) 813, Bahadur Singh and another Vs. Avtar Singh 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 44 and Hakam Singh and others Vs. Baljit Sikngh and others (2006-3) PLR 555. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can not be accepted. It is now settled law that appellant can challenge the decree on all the grounds, therefore, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, by amendment of grounds of appeal. It is well settled law, that all points available to appellant can be raised in appeal even if not taken in the grounds of appeal. The reliance on the judgments of this Court, referred to above, by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived, as in all these judgments, the amendment of the plaint or written statement, was declined, being at belated stage. The law laid down in these judgments can be applied not to the amendment of grounds of appeal, that too to correct the intemperate language used in the CR No. 5777 of 2010 -3- ***** grounds of appeal. No merit. Dismissed. 09.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE