IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CMPMO No.601 of 2008. Decided on: August 30,2011. Mast Ram …….Petitioner. Versus Chamari and others …….Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner: Ms.Shilpa Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Dharamvir Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice V.K. Ahuja,J.(oral): Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. vide which he rejected the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. 2. A notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents annexed with the petition. 3. The plaintiff had filed the application for amendment of the plaint alleging that he had filed a suit for damages against the defendants, which is 2 pending. The plaintiff wanted to amend the plaint to take up the plea that the alleged construction has been raised over the government land. This amendment was necessitated because there was an agreement in between the parties and different clauses of the agreement are there, as have been discussed by the learned trial Court in para 9 of the impugned order. It has been clearly mentioned therein that the plaintiff was to get two reliefs only by way of this agreement. Firstly he was to get the shop in the building so raised by him and in the alternative he was to get `3.00 lacs in case he is ousted from the shop. The second clause referred to was that in case the building was found on the government land, it was the duty of the defendants to get the registered sale deed of the same executed in favour of the plaintiff as and when possession of the defendants was regularized. Thus, this question was material as to where the alleged construction has been made, whether on the government land or otherwise and then it has to be interpreted as to which clause of the agreement will be attracted to the facts of the case. The nature of the amendment sought by the plaintiff was such which has to be determined in this suit only and not by way of any other litigation. 4. Therefore, the application for amendment deserved to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. In view of the fact that the application for amendment was filed by the plaintiff at 3 the stage when the case was fixed for arguments, the application is allowed subject to the costs of `1,000/- payable before the learned trial Court by the plaintiff on the first date of hearing. The amended plaint shall be taken on record and liberty shall be given to the defendants to file amended written statement and thereafter the case shall be proceeded with in accordance with law. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 26.9.2011. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned trial Court for information. 5. The petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly, so also the pending application(s), if any. August 30, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.