Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2009 Date of decision: 13.10.2009 Kaushlaya Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Dr. R.P Jain @ Raghbir Parkash Jain and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: -Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangrur, allowing an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff by way of amendment sought to add para No. 3B in the plaint after para No. 3, alleging therein that by way of family settlement land in dispute was given to the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. The learned trial Court allowed the application by holding, that by way of amendment plaintiff/respondent has wanted to plead additional facts in support of the case set up. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the facts now sought to be pleaded were within the knowledge of the plaintiff/respondent, therefore, by way of amendment he cannot be Civil Revision No. 5864 of 2009 -2- allowed to raise the plea now sought by way of amendment. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that initially the plaintiff/respondent had claimed himself to be adopted son of defendant/petitioner No. 1, whereas now he is claiming to have come in possession as owner of the land in dispute. He is, thus, shifting his stand, which cannot be permitted by way of amendment. On consideration, I find no force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is only after the commencement of the trial that a party is not allowed to amend the pleading to assert the facts which were within the knowledge of the party or could be found out with due diligence. In the case in hand, the trial has not commenced and is at initial stage. The law of amendment is very liberal. All amendments which are necessary for the adjudication of the case can be allowed by way of amendment. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, deserves to be rejected. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners also deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as the plaintiff/respondent has not withdrawn any admission. He has pleaded additional fact to claim ownership of the suit property, in support of the relief claimed. It cannot, therefore, be said that he is shifting or changing his stand, as contended. No merit. Dismissed in limine. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge October 13, 2009 R.S.