IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3780 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 Kulwant Singh .... Petitioner Versus The Chairman, Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present : Mr. Vivek Salathia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 3 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present revision petition has been filed against the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn) Tarn Taran whereby the application for the proposed amendment was rejected. A Coordinate Bench on June 2, 2011 while issuing notice of motion has noticed the contentions of counsel for the petitioner as under:- “ Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that by way of amendment the petitioner merely wants to incorporate additional prayer. It has been undertaken that in case the amendment is allowed the petitioner will not make any request for additional evidence and would argue the matter on the basis of the evidence which has C.R. No. 3780 of 2011 2 already been produced. The trial Court while dismissing the application for amendment has observed that if proposed amendment is allowed, de novo trial of the suit would start. In peculiar circumstances of this case, the amendment can be allowed without framing of any additional issue and after giving one opportunity to the defendant-respondents to file amended written statement, the matter can be finally heard without any delay. Whether the relief sought for by way of amendment of pleadings can be considered on merits, under issue No. 4 already framed, the defendant-respondents can be compensated with cost for the harassment caused. Notice of motion for July 26, 2011. Dasti only.” Mr. Sharma, Advocate appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 states that in case petitioner will not lead any additional evidence and will act in consonance with the observations recorded in the order, reproduced above, he has no objection in allowing the proposed amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his concession recorded in the form of undertaking is binding upon him. In view of broad consensus between the counsel for the parties, present revision petition is accepted. Application for amendment is allowed subject to condition that no additional issue will be framed and the effect of amendment shall fall within the ambit of issue of relief. One opportunity shall be afforded to the defendant- respondent to file amended written statement and thereafter without affording any opportunity to lead evidence, suit shall be decided C.R. No. 3780 of 2011 3 without any delay. An application has been filed for impleading legal representatives of respondent No. 4. During the course of arguments, counsel for the parties are in agreement that for disposal of the present revision petition, legal representatives of respondent No. 4 are not required to be brought on record. Ordered accordingly. Hence application is also disposed of. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) 30.08.2011 JUDGE reena