Civil Revision No. 4420 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4420 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.08.2009 The State of Haryana and others ....Petitioners Versus Bir Singh and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.5.2009, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide which the application moved by the applicant-respondents, for amendment of pleadings, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed. The operative part of the order reads as under: - “I have given my due consideration to the arguments and the relevant law. No doubt the present amendment is being sought by the applicants at a stage when the trial has already commenced and even the suit has been decided by the learned trial court. However, if the contents of the application under order 6 Rule 17 CPC are taken into consideration, it transpires that by virtue of this amendment the applicants (being appellants) is shunning away a major part of prayer clause originally incorporated in the paint. By virtue of amendment the prayer clause is getting slimmer and more specific. In my considered opinion, by way of above mentioned amendment neither the nature of the Civil Revision No. 4420 of 2009 -2- suit is being changed nor it is going to prejudice any legal right of the respondents. In my considered opinion, by amendment of prayer clause the court will be in a better position to effectively adjudicate upon the rights f the parties. In these circumstances, in my considered opinion the amendment being sought by the applicants is necessary for the just and proper decision of the case.” The reading of the order shows, that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners, as the amendment sought, neither changed the nature of the suit nor any additional relief was claimed, which was not earlier claimed. Keeping in view that the order caused no prejudice to the petitioners, there is no reason for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the impugned order. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 21, 2009 R.S.