IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.686 of 2009 Date of decision : August 2, 2010 Manohar Lal and another …Petitioners. Versus Smt. Prabhi Devi and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/s Tarlok Chauhan & Vijay Chaudhary, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioners have filed a suit, seeking declaration that they have acquired title by prescription, in respect of the suit land, and also for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the defendants-respondents from causing any interference in their possession. 2. It was after both the parties closed their evidence that an application for amendment of the plaint was moved, so as to take the plea that the defendants- respondents, who are co-sharers, stood ousted from the suit land in the year 1964. Initially, plaintiffs’-petitioners’ case was that they purchased a share in the suit land in the year 1951 and ever since they have been in possession of whole of the suit land, which amounted to ouster of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… defendants-respondents. Prayer was opposed by the defendants-respondents. Trial Court has dismissed the application, observing that earlier also the petitioners had been permitted to amend the plaint and that the present application appeared to be a tactic to further delay and prolong the proceedings in the suit. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only the plaintiff would be examined to prove the fact/plea sought to be incorporated, by way of amendment and that in case the amendment is allowed there will not be much delay in the disposal of the case. Since plea of ouster has already been taken in the plaint and now only the year of the alleged ouster is to be incorporated, by way of amendment, I think interest of justice would be better served, if amendment is allowed. Hence, present petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the plaintiffs-petitioners is allowed and they are permitted to amend the plaint, to the extent that they may plead that defendants-respondents had been ousted from the joint ownership in the year 1964. This amendment is allowed, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid to the opposite party in the trial Court. Of course, the defendants-respondents shall have the right to file amended written statement and also to lead evidence …3… in rebuttal of the evidence, which the plaintiffs-petitioners may lead to prove their amended plea of adverse possession. Petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17th August, 2010. Record be returned immediately. August 2, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J