C.M.No.20375-CII of 2009 and 1 Civil Revision No.4907 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M.No.20375-CII of 2009 and Civil Revision No.4907 of 2009 Date of Decision:28.08.2009 M/s Gupta Hotel .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. Present: Mr.Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.(Oral) C.M.No.20375-CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.4907 of 2009 In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the plaintiff-petitioner has impugned the order dated 20.07.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed by it, under Order 1 Rule 10 and under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was dismissed. The trial Court while dismissing the said application had, in para 13 of its order, recorded as under:- “The present suit was filed in the year 1998. Thereafter, plaint was amended and defendants No.3 to 10 were arrayed as defendants and issues were framed and six witnesses have been recorded in this case and the trial C.M.No.20375-CII of 2009 and 2 Civil Revision No.4907 of 2009 Court was directed to decide the present case within one year from the date of passing the order dated 5.5.2008 by the Hon'ble High Court and case would be decided upto 5.4.2010. The plaintiff wanted to lead their evidence after framing the issues. It has opportunity to lead evidence and examine any witness from the MCF in its evidence to prove the contents of the plaint as the plaintiff clearly mentioned in para no.2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the plaint that vide letter No.FCA/B/ADB/CA/89 dated 5.1.93, the plaintiff deposited the amount of Rs.44,983/- as sale price as the plaintiff purchased the property from FCA. Hence, the plaintiff has already alleged in the plaint, then heavy onus is on the plaintiff to produce evidence by examining the witnesses either from FCA or from MCF. If MCF is not made party in this case, then no prejudice shall be caused to the plaintiff as the plaintiffs have opportunity to produce evidence in this case. The present application is moved by the plaintiff at belated stage and without any reason to show that the MCF is proper and necessary party for adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Hence, the application moved by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Further the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151, CPC are not attracted to the application moved by the plaintiff as it is settled law by Hon'ble High Court in case titled Prem Chand Vs. Chetan Dass (supra) that parties should not be allowed to substitute one cause of action or the nature of the C.M.No.20375-CII of 2009 and 3 Civil Revision No.4907 of 2009 claim for another as claimed originally and should not be allowed to change the subject matter or controversy in the suit. The dictum laid down in the authorities (supra) referred by counsel for the plaintiff is not disputed but the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The plaintiff is not entitled to amend the plaint as alleged in the application and is not necessary for adjudication of real controversy between the parties”. In view of the above, no ground for interference by this Court with the impugned order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, being devoid of any merit, the present revision petition is dismissed. August 28, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) seema JUDGE