C.R. No. 75 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 75 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 15, 2009 Inderjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Vandana and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.R.S. Mamli, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.K. Chugh, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated September 21, 2007, an application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner for amendment has been partly allowed. The plaintiff- petitioner had originally filed a suit for declaration to the effect that petitioner is owner alongwith defendant Nos. 3 and 4 of the undivided property mentioned in the heading of the plaint, with a consequential relief that defendants No.1 and 2 have got no right or C.R. No. 75 of 2009 [2] authority to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from any part of the property. By moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the plaintiff- petitioner sought the correction of clerical mistake to incorporate the house number and boundaries of the suit properties besides this an amendment in the prayer for consequential relief had also been prayed for to seek the consequential relief of possession. The trial Court had permitted the plaintiff- petitioner to incorporate the details of the property by adding the number and boundaries of the property involved in the case but refused to permit the plaintiff to claim the relief of possession, observing that such a plea will be mutually destructive plea from the plea already taken. This revision petition has been preferred claiming that in case the plaintiff- petitioner is permitted to rectify the inadvertent mistake which came into the notice of the plaintiff while preparing affidavit for evidence and that it will not change the nature of the litigation and will prevent the multiplicity of litigation. A perusal of the words which are sought to be incorporated by way of amendment indicates that the plaintiff- petitioner is sticking to the original stand of being in possession of part of the property but in the relief clause a further consequential relief in the form of possession of Dahleej and room situated in the western south corner of the house as shown in the site plan, has been sought to be incorporated. Whether the said prayer can be allowed is not to be examined at this stage besides this plea, for possession of a part of the suit property will not, in any manner, change the C.R. No. 75 of 2009 [3] nature of the suit. The controversy between the parties will be decided once for all by deciding the rival claims. Counsel for the respondents has contended that the plaintiff- petitioner is neither in possession of any portion of the property nor he is entitled to any additional portion. It has been admitted that the case is at the stage of recording of evidence of the plaintiff. Taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the application of the plaintiff- petitioner for amendment should be allowed in toto subject to payment of costs, instead of allowing the same partly. The revision petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Amendment application of the petitioner is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-. Costs will be paid on the date fixed by the trial Court before permitting the amended plaint to be brought on record. December 15, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE