C.R.No.3145 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3145 of 2009. Decided on: November 30, 2009. Smt.Sudesh Kumari .. Petitioner VERSUS Sultan Singh and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.A.K.Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rishav Jain, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 & 6. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. By way of an application for amendment of plaint, the plaintiff-petitioner sought to take up the plea in the plaint that . . . 1 C.R.No.3145 of 2009 defendant No.1 Bhartha and defendant No.4 Gyano Devi, had died and that on account of their death share of the parties has changed as such, he wanted to add para Nos. a, b, c, d & e, of the application in the plaint. The trial Court had dismissed the application observing that with the death of defendants during proceedings, the plaintiff is bound to produce the evidence that the deceased had died issueless but as no evidence to that effect has been led that defendant Nos.1 & 4, had died issueless, the amendment could not be allowed in view of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has submitted that as the evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed, the plaintiff- petitioner does not want to lead any other evidence but on account of subsequent events that arose after filing of the suit, the amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Counsel for the defendants-respondents has contended that in view of the plea regarding Release Deed, there is no question of enhancement of the shares with the death of defendant Nos.1 & 4. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the amendment, if any, allowed on the basis of the subsequent events will not prejudice the rights of any of the parties. By allowing the amendment, the Court will not be determining the shares and interests of the parties, but would be merely enabling the plaintiff to bring the actual facts existing today, on the record, which I . . . 2 C.R.No.3145 of 2009 am of the considered opinion would enable the Court to arrive at just conclusion while appreciating the evidence produced on the record. The revision petition is allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,000/-, and the plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to amend the plaint to incorporate the pleas mentioned in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. However, as stated by the counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff, the petitioner-plaintiff will not be permitted to lead any additional evidence on the amended pleas. The cost of Rs.2,000/- will be paid by the plaintiff- petitioner to the defendants-respondents on the date fixed by the trial Court. In case the costs is not paid, this revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 30, 2009. rka . . . 3