IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2165 of 2010 Date of Decision: August 16, 2010 Paramjit Kaur and others. …Petitioners Versus Darshan Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH. 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. M.P. Goswami, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed assailing the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bathinda, thereby dismissing the application moved by the plaintiff-appellants seeking amendment in the plaint to incorporate Rs.3 lacs in para no.4 instead of Rs.1 lac. C.R. No. 2165 of 2010 Undisputedly during the pendency of the original case before the learned Trial Court, the amendment application was moved. Initially, amendment application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and order of the learned Trial Court was challenged before this Court by way of Civil Revision No. 5391 of 2006, which was allowed vide order dated 20th February, 2007, permitting the plaintiff-appellants to carry out the amendment in para no.4 of the plaint correcting the figure of Rs. 1 lac as Rs. 3 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that while filing the amended plaint in compliance with the order of this Court dated 20.02.2007, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs committed the same mistake and without amending the figure in para no.4 of the plaint, filed the plaint as it is. The mistake was realized during the pendency of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners further states that for the lapses on the part of the counsel for the plaintiffs, plaintiffs should not be allowed to suffer and the defendant – respondent could be compensated by way of cost. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed and argued that once amendment was not carried out, it shall be deemed to have been waived. In view of the fact that amendment was already allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 20.02.2007 and in view of the fact that while filing the amended plaint, learned 2 C.R. No. 2165 of 2010 counsel for the plaintiffs negligently filed the amended plaint as it is, I am of the view that the amendment sought during the pendency of the appeal, ought to have been allowed, which was wrongly declined by the learned First Appellate Court. Present petition is allowed. Amendment sought by the petitioners is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- as costs, which is to be paid within 10 days from today. August 16, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3