Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 Date of Decision:19.08.2011 M/s S.K.Traders ......Petitioner Versus M/s Harman Enterprises .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that M/s S.K.Traders-petitioner-plaintiff(for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit against M/s Harman Enterprises-respondent- defendant(for short “the defendant”) for a recovery of `47,517/-(Rupees Forty Seven Thousand Five Hundred Seventeen only) as price of lubricants oil along with interest @ 12% pre annum, inter, alia, pleading that in the wake of order placed by the defendant-Firm, the plaintiff-Firm supplied the lubricants oil to it, by way of different bills, indicated in the plaint(Annexure P-1). 2. The defendant-Firm contested the suit of the plaintiff-Firm, filed the written statement(Annexure P-2), denying the contents of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-Firm moved an application(Annexure P-3) for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. The defendant-Firm refuted the prayer, filed the reply (Annexure P-4) and prayed for dismissal of the application. Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 2 4. The trial Court dismissed the application(Annexure P-3) of the plaintiff, by virtue of impugned order dated 30.05.2011(Annexure P-5). 5. Aggrieved by the impugned decision of the trial Court, the plaintiff 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, going through the record with his valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect. 7. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since, the proposed amendment was essential to decide the suit, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application(Annexure P-3) of the plaintiff, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record that, the plaintiff filed the simple suit for recovery against the defendant in lieu of the sale price of lubricants oil, supplied through various bills, depicted in the plaint(Annexure P-1). Now, the plaintiff moved an application(Annexure P-3) for amendment of the heading as well as para No.1 of the plaint, only in order to elaborate the facts, indicated therein the application(Annexure P-3). To me, since the plaintiff has filed a simple suit for recovery on the basis of bills, so, the question of any elaboration of the facts did not arise at all. The plaintiff is only required to prove the genuineness of bills and sale of lubricants oil to the defendant. The plaintiff has already described all the essential and relevant facts in the plaint(Annexure P-1). The real controversy between the parties can effectively be decided on the existing pleadings. Therefore, the contrary arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner “stricto sensu” deserve to be and are hereby repelled under the present set of circumstances. 9. Above all, the trial Court has recorded the valid grounds in the impugned order dated 30.05.2011 in this relevant context. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 3 jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless 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, so, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. August 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 4 C.M.No.20003-CII of 2011 in Civil Revision No.5022 of 2011 Present: Mr.Amit Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** Application is allowed as prayed for. August 19, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE