IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.366 of 2009 Date of decision : July 27, 2010 Resham Singh …Petitioner. Versus Intiaz Ahmed and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok K.Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner-plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated 24th March, 2009, copy Annexure P-5, by which his application for amendment of plaint, made to the Additional District Judge, in whose Court appeal, against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, is pending, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner has filed a suit, claiming that he has acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession, inasmuch as he has remained in possession of the suit property for more than 12 years, even after the passing of a consent decree, for possession of the suit property, in favour of the defendants-respondents. According to him, there was a litigation between the parties earlier also, in which decree for possession of the suit land measuring 13 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… bigha 16 biswa was passed in favour of the defendants- respondents, as a result of compromise between the parties, but even after the passing of that decree, plaintiff- petitioner remained in possession for more than 12 years and his possession was open, hostile, as of right, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the defendants- respondents. Trial Court has decreed the suit and declared the plaintiff-petitioner as owner of the suit land, he having acquired title by prescription. 3. Appeal has been filed against the decree of the trial Court by the defendants-respondents. Petitioner filed an application for amending the plaint, so as to take the plea that the compromise decree passed in the earlier litigation in the year 1986 having not been executed by the defendants-respondents, they have lost their right to execute the decree. This plea is sought to be added to strengthen the plea of adverse possession already taken. District Judge has dismissed the application. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of dismissal of his application. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. Since the plea is sought to be incorporated to strengthen the plea of adverse possession already taken, there is hardly any need for allowing the amendment. Amendment sought in the plaint is by way of pleading the evidence and evidence is not required to be pleaded. In …3… any case, such a plea would be relevant and can be raised by the plaintiff-petitioner, in case the compromise decree is sought to be executed by the defendants-respondents. 6. In view of the abovestated position, the present petition is dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the main petition, pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. July 27, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J