Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision. 30.09.2011 Manohar Lal .... Petitioner Versus Tarsem Lal and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. CM No.23152-CII of 2011 The prayer for permission to place on record Annexures P-3 to P-5 i.e. copy of plaint, copy of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and copy of reply to the application and for exemption from filing certified copies of the same is allowed. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CR No.5698 of 2011 Manohar Lal, plaintiff has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 26.7.2011 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridkot whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2011 --2-- Manohar Lal, plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the use of common stair case as shown in the site plan, which is the only access with the plaintiff to the chobara over which he is a tenant alongwith the shop underneath the same since 1980 under defendant no.4. Claiming that the width of the stair case was 32”, which could not be mentioned in the plaint by the plaintiff. The defendants have dismantled the stair case and have encroached upon 17” width of the stair case and has added this portion to their shop leaving the stair case measuring 15” in width. It is claimed that it is now impossible for the plaintiff to take his goods to the chobara. It is claimed that the amendment has been necessitated by the subsequent developments and the amendment sought is not there to fill up any lacuna left in the pleadings. Learned trial court has observed that the date of encroachment of a portion of the stair case has not been mentioned by the plaintiff in his application. According to her, the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC had been dismissed on 20.08.2007. Coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff must have had knowledge of the facts, sought to be added by way of this application before commencement of the trial and that under the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC the amendment cannot be allowed at belated stage, the application has been dismissed being without merit. Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff has brought this revision petition. I have heard Mr. Ashok Singla, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. In the copy of reply filed by the defendants to the application for amendment of the plaint, it is claimed that the stair case is owned and possessed by the defendants and the plaintiff has nothing to do with the same. The case of the defendants as well as the reason for learned trial court to dismiss the application has been that the plaintiff had knowledge of the fact now sought to be pleaded before the commencement of the trial. Nothing is there in the reply of the defendants to suggest as to what was the width of the stair case to begin with and what is its width now. If the width of the stair case has been reduced after filing of the suit, it would require amendment of the plaint because the original width of the stair case would be required to be specified in the plaint. The amendment is , therefore, shown to have been necessitated by the subsequent developments with regard to the suit property and in these circumstances, the amendment could not be denied for the reason that this fact was known to the plaintiff before commencement of the trial. Civil Revision No. 5698 of 2011 --4-- The amendment is definitely necessary for effectively deciding the dispute between the parties because the width of the stair case is integral part of the controversy between the parties. The revision petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The application for amendment is consequently allowed subject to payment of Rs.3000/- as costs to the opposite side. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 30.09.2011 dinesh