Civil Revision No. 2119 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2119 of 2009 Date of decision: 03.11.2009 Vinod Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Dhandiwal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the plaintiff/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the plaint, stands dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioner brought a suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner in possession of the property. The suit was contested. Issues were framed on 22.11.2006. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for amendment of the plaint on 8.10.2008 alleging therein that fact of raising of iron gate and boundary wall came to the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner Civil Revision No. 2119 of 2009 -2- after the filing of the written statement and, therefore, he may be allowed to amend the plaint in order to claim relief of mandatory injunction, directing the respondent to remove the encroachment made on the land of the plaintiff/petitioner by removing the boundary wall and iron gate. Application was contested wherein specific plea was taken, that the fact of raising boundary wall and iron gate was within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit, as prior to the suit the plaintiff/petitioner had contested the mutation proceedings before the Collector, wherein a specific plea regarding raising of boundary wall and iron gate was taken. Learned trial Court dismissed the application for amendment, in view of the fact that the plaintiff/petitioner was in know of the facts now sought to be pleaded, as these were disclosed during the mutation proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law as the petitioner was seeking amendment of the plaint to claim relief in view of the stand taken in the written statement. It is also the case of the petitioner that it was not open to the learned trial Court to record a finding that the fact of raising boundary wall and iron gate was within the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner in absence of evidence having been led on the point. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Once it is not disputed that the stand of raising boundary wall and iron gate was taken in the Civil Revision No. 2119 of 2009 -3- proceedings before the learned Collector, which was contested by the petitioner, it cannot be said that these facts were not within the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner when the suit was filed. Learned trial Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the application in view of the priviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars the amendment of the pleadings, to plead the facts which were within the knowledge of the party at the time of filing of pleadings or which could be known with due diligence. In the present case, the facts now sought to be pleaded were admittedly within the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner. There is no error or illegality in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may call for any interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge November 03, 2009 R.S.