Civil Revision No. 4763 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4763 of 2009 Date of Decision: 24.8.2009 Hardev Singh ......Petitioner Versus Manohar Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri M.S. Bedi, Senior Advocate, with Shri K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court on 31.7.2009, whereby an application for amendment of the plaint, was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership over 4 kanals of land purchased from one Watan Singh vide registered sale deed dated 18.9.1974. Watan Singh has executed two separate sale deeds on 14.3.1977. It is the case fo the petitioner that the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Phagwara, while sanctioning mutation in pursuance of sale deeds dated 14.3.1977, also sanctioned mutation in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner wants to incorporate such fact in the plaint by way of amendment. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Civil Revision No. 4763 of 2009 (2) Watan Singh was possessed of more land and sale effected by Watan Singh on 14.3.1977 was out of the share of the land owned by him.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the amendment sought is only explanatory in nature so as to explain the sanction of mutation in his favour and that such amendment is not prejudicial to the interests of the defendants. It appears that Watan Singh has executed number of sale deeds in respect of the land owned by him. In some sale deeds he has specified specific khasra numbers of the land sold by him. Even if the sale is of specific khasra numbers, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Bhartu v. Ram Sarup, 1981 PLJ 204, it is a sale of a share only. The amendment sought by the petitioner is, in fact, amendment to introduce evidence, which is not necessary. In respect of the pleadings already raised, the petitioner can lead evidence including the sanction of mutation in his favour. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 24.8.2009 ds