Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2009 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2009 Date of decision: 21.05.2009. Gurinder Singh and others Petitioners Versus Ujagar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. R.K.Singla, Advocate for the petitioners ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The following facts are apparent from the record:- Ujagar Singh son of Harnam Singh had filed a civil suit against Gurcharan Kaur and five others including Gurminder Kaur, who was shown defendant no.3 therein. During the trial, the plaintiff- respondent filed a plea under Order 6Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of plaint on certain count. In that application of amendment, and also in the amended plaint filed along therewith, the name of Gurminder Kaur was omitted as a party. It is only vide the impugned application that the plaintiff-respondent applied for the amendment of the plaint to again include the name of Gurminder Kaur in the suit as a party. That plea was allowed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Civil Revision No. 2938 of 2009 -2- *** defendants-petitioners, argues that the omission of name of Gurminder Kaur from the initial plea for amendment and also the proposed amended plaint, was a clear indication that the plaintiffs- respondents had abandoned their claim against her. In that very context, the reliance has also been placed upon the fact that the name of Gurminder Kaur was also omitted from the pedigree table mentioned in the plaint. The plea is denuded of merit. When Gurminder Kaur had been impleaded as a defendant at the trial. There is nothing to indicate that she had been given up as a party. The clue to the controversy is to be found in the amended plea under challenge. It was averred therein that the name of Gurminder Kaur as a party got omitted inadvertently. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order of the learned Trial Court cannot be faulted on any valid score. The plea of abandonment cannot be upheld in the circumstances of the case. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. May 21, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge