IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5977 of 2005(O&M) Date of Decision 25.11.2009 Baljinder Singh ...... Petitioner VERSUS Meeto wife of Mukand Singh ...... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.S.C.Chhabra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.R.V.S.Chug, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J(ORAL): Aggrieved against the order dated 24.10.2005 passed by District Judge, Mansa, allowing an application for amendment of the plaint at the appellate stage, this petition has been preferred. Earlier the decree suffered by Meeto in favour of Baljinder Singh was passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mansa vide order dated 21.02.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for correction of the judgment and decree which was accepted on the admission made by Meeto- respondent on 15.05.1993. The suit for declaration challenging the decree as well as the mutation dated 27.07.1994 was filed by the respondent on 15.04.1996 which was dismissed by the lower Court on 07.05.2003. The appeal against the said judgment is pending before the appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal, Meeto-respondent moved an application for amendment of the plaint for adding the relief qua the order dated 15.05.1993 which was accepted. Civil Revision No.5977 of 2005(O&M) -2- Arguments heard. It is the judgment and decree which could only be challenged on correction of the said decree, the order of correction emerges in the judgment and decree itself and there was no requirement of challenging the order of correction. However, while challenging the judgment and decree, the plaintiff cannot be debarred to urge and prove that the correction was also got made in her absence. There was no difficulty for her to prove that these documents were forged and fabricated in order to assert and strengthen her plea that the judgment and decree under challenge was bad. The Appellate Court while allowing the amendment at the appellate stage should have continuously and carefully proceeded to allow such amendment when the rights of the parties stood already adjudicated upon. The suit was preferred way back in the year 1996. Now after 13 years, the plaintiff-respondent has moved the application for amendment. Anyway, since the order of correction having been emerged in the original judgment and decree would follow the fate of the judgment and decree. Thus, this petition is accepted; the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is not debarred from proving that the correction was also got made in her absence. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 25.11.2009 mamta-II