C.R. No.4032 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4032 of 2005 (O&M ) Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 Shiv Charan ...........Petitioner Versus Jia Ram and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjay Vij, Advocate for the respondents -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Gurgaon vide which the application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Petitioner-Shiv Charan filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner moved an application for permission to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `CPC'). Vide the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present, revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had filed the suit challenging the sale deed dated 16.2.1982 on various grounds including the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. At this stage, the revision petition had not been filed by the defendants and the plaintiff by way of amendment only wanted to explain the ground of fraud C.R. No.4032 of 2005 2 and misrepresentation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner-plaintiff by way of amendment wanted to change the nature of the plaint and, hence, the application for permission to amend the plaint had been rightly dismissed. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “ 17.Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial” Admittedly, in the present case, plaintiff has challenged the sale deed dated 16.2.1982 on various grounds including fraud. Now by way of amendment, the plaintiff only wants to explain the ground of fraud taken by him. Defendants have not filed the written statement so far. In these circumstances, the amendment of the plaint sought by the plaintiff should have been allowed by the trial Court. The suit was at the initial stage. Whether the plaintiff-petitioner has got a good cause on merits would be decided by the trial Court after the parties conclude their evidence and address arguments. At this stage, only plaintiff-petitioner wants to explain C.R. No.4032 of 2005 3 the plea of fraud taken by him by way of amendment. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the trial Court is set aside and, consequently, the application for permission to amend the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC plaintiff-petitioner is allowed. ( Sabina ) Judge October 29 , 2009 arya C.R. No.4032 of 2005 4