CR No. 907 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No. 907 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.03.2011. Brijbhan .......Petitioner Vs. M/s Tatvadarshi Bandhu Pvt. Ltd and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiffs has filed a suit for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred as CPC) (Annexure P-1) for amendment of the plaint was filed. Vide impugned order dated 13.1.2011 the said application was allowed by the trial court. Hence, the present revision petition by defendant No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application was liable to be dismissed as the plaintiffs already had the knowledge of the lease deeds in question. Moreover, the application was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the plaintiffs got the knowledge of the lease deeds when they CR No. 907 of 2011 (O&M) -2- had moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 6 on the other hand has submitted that the plaintiffs got the knowledge of the lease deeds only when the written statement was filed and immediately application for permission to amend the plaint was moved by the plaintiffs. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction. Now by way of amendment, plaintiffs want to claim relief of declaration also by challenging the lease deeds and mutations set up by defendants in their written statement. The written statement was filed by the defendants in the year 2006. The application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was admittedly filed by the plaintiffs in the suit filed by the petitioner in the year 2005. The argument raised by the counsel for the petitioner that the application was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is misconceived. The lease deeds and mutations in question have been pleaded by the defendants in their written statement. In case the plaintiffs are allowed to amend their plaint then dispute between the parties will be disposed of on merits. Admittedly, parties are yet to lead their evidence. In these circumstances, the learned trial court had rightly allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for permission to amend the plaint. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE March 01, 2011 Gurpreet