C.R. No. 5271 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5271 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 14.9.2009 Elofic Industries ( India ) .......... Petitioner Versus Adish Estate Service & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.8.2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Faridabad vide which application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been declined. The plaintiff / petitioner filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant / respondents from dispossessing him from the tenanted area measuring 6200 sq. feet. The written statement was filed, in which the defendant / respondents took a specific stand that, they will not dispossess the petitioner except with due process of law. The plaintiff / petitioner herein moved an application for amendment of the plaint to plead therein that, the actual area of tenanted C.R. No. 5271 of 2009 2 premises was 9200 sq. feet. Along with the said amendment the plaintiff also sought to place on record the boundaries showing that the tenancy of the petitioner by map A B C D E F. The amendment application was dismissed. The petitioner also failed in revision. This second application thereafter was moved on the plea that, as per the requirement of law, the petitioner was required to depict the boundaries to succeed in the suit, therefore, the amendment sought was necessary for adjudication of dispute. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the learned Court blow while deciding an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not to go into the merits of the case, and was to see whether the amendment sought was necessary for adjudication of the controversy between the parties. The learned trial Court has been pleased to dismiss the application for the reason that, similar attempt was made by the petitioner by claiming the tenancy to be over the area of 9200 Sq. feet but having failed in the said attempt, the second attempt was being made to claim that he was tenant over the area 9200 sq. feet by asserting therein that he wanted to mention the boundaries, as per the requirement of the law. The learned trial Court also held that this amendment application having been filed after the commencement of the trial, could not be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the contention that, it was mandatory for the Court to have allowed C.R. No. 5271 of 2009 3 the amendment being necessary for the purpose of determination of the real controversy. In support reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. K.K. Modi & Ors. 2006(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 577 and Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan Vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors. 2007(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 866. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The application moved by the petitioner was an attempt to over-reach the Court after having failed in the first attempt to get the pleadings amended. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that amendment could have been allowed on payment of costs, also cannot be accepted for the reason that the similar prayer also stood declined earlier. No amendment of the pleadings could be allowed after the commencement of the trial in view of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as facts were within the knowledge of the petitioner on the date of filing of plaint. No merit. Dismissed. 14.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE