IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 05 of 2008 1. Sri Amarnath, S/o Sri Bacchi Ram R/o Village Gaujajali Bichli Bareilly Road, Haldwani, Nainital. 2. Sri Ved Prakash, S/o Sri Behari Lal R/o Near Manke Behari Mandir Talli Bamori, Haldwani District Nainital. 3. Sri Laxmi Chand Aswani S/o Sri Khem Chand R/o Bareilly Road, Near Dhan Mill and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani District Nainital. ……Revisionists. Versus Sri Nanak Chand S/o Late Sri Shanti Swaroop R/o Village Gaujajali Uttar, Pargana Bhawar Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. & 13 others. .……….Respondents. Shri Pradeep Hairiya, Advocate for the revisionists. Shri Prem Prakash Fartiyal, Advocate, holding brief of Shri T.A. Khan, counsel for the respondent No.1. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This revision has been filed against the order dated 02.11.2007, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Nainital) in suit No. 65 of 2005, whereby said court has allowed the application 57-C of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent has instituted suit No. 65 of 2005, for permanent injunction against the defendant (present revisionist) restraining them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the property in suit, which is part of Khata No. 124, situated in Village Gaujajali Uttar, Tehsil Haldwani, District Nainital. During the pendency of the suit, before the issues are framed, the plaintiff appears to have moved application 57-C, for amendment in the plaint to bring on record certain developments of facts, which took place during the pendency of suit. It is further pleaded in the plaint that during the pendency of the suit, an agreement of sale has been entered between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 to 4 and some other persons during October 2005 but the defendants who gave cheque towards consideration, got bounced. As such, the defendants No. 1 to 4, cannot with the assistance of other defendants, take the possession of the property in suit. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or any other material error of law, committed by the trial court in allowing the amendment application, as it appears that the trial court thought just and necessary to get 3 incorporated the new developments in the pleadings and by permitting the plaintiff to implead other proper parties in the suit. That being so, this revision is liable to be dismissed. 5. The revision is dismissed summarily. Interim order, passed by this Court, automatically stands vacated. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:07.11.2009 Sweta 4 5 6 7 8 9