Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 Date of decision. 19.09.2011 Sudarshan Kumar .... Petitioner Versus Kabal Singh and another ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Sudarshan Kumar, one of the two plaintiffs has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.06.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the application of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Annexure P1 is the copy of plaint of a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assistants, and attorneys from interfering in the property of the plaintiff, particularly the shop bearing Khana Shumari Nos. 762/8 and 763/8 adjoining Chowk Chint Purni, Taraf Bazar Mushki Mohalla Amritsar. Application has been filed seeking amendment of the plaint. It is claimed in the said application that the applicant has brought suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 --2-- property in question. He has claimed himself to be owner in possession of the property in dispute. The other party is denying the title of the applicant to the said property and, therefore, relief of declaration with respect to the title of the plaintiffs has become relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the matter in controversy. So besides amending the head note of the plaint, the plaintiffs want to add para no.3-A to the plaint and change paras no.5,11 and the prayer clause. The application is opposed by the defendant on various grounds. It is claimed that both the parties have already led their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments when the application was filed. It is claimed that the proposed amendment would change the nature of the case. It is also claimed in the reply that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to fill up lacuna left in their case. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the sale deed executed on 25.07.2005 on the basis of which the relief of declaration of title was sought was already in the knowledge of the plaintiff-applicant much before his leading evidence and is, therefore, not a subsequent change. It was observed that the amendment would change the basic nature of the suit and would result into a denovo trial. The provisions of Code of Civil Procedure in this regard have also been noticed to the effect that no amendment could now be allowed at the belated stage unless the applicant satisfies the court that he was not aware of those facts and the same could not be incorporated in the plaint earlier. Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 --3-- Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff Sudarshan Kumar has brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. V.K. Sandhir, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has submitted that the amendment in the pleadings is not to be mechanically denied. According to him, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has set out some factors to be considered while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons & others 2010(1) RCR (Civil) 27. Those factors are as under:- “(1) Whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and effective adjudication of the case? (2) Whether the application for amendment is bona fide or mala fide ? (3) The amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money; (4) Refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to multiple litigation; (5) Whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case ? and (6) As a general rule, the Court should decline amendments if a fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation on the date of application. (7)These are some of the important factors which may be kept in mind while dealing with application filed under Order VI Rule 17. These are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (8) The decision on an application made under Order VI Rule 17 is a very serious judicial exercise and the said Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 --4-- exercise should never be undertaken in a casual manner. (9) While deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant has denied his title to the suit property. According to him, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Smt. Raj Kumari Bawa through her attorney Ravinder Pal Singh, vide sale deed dated 25.07.2005. He has submitted that the amendment would not change the nature of the suit. He has, thus, submitted that the order impugned passed by learned trial court is illegal. In a suit for permanent injunction based on title, declaration of title is implicit. The plaintiff has mentioned in para no.3 of the plaint about the sale deed executed by Smt. Raj Kumari Bawa in his favour on 25.7.2005. Therefore, on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was aware of the sale deed on the strength of which he claimed title to the suit property. When the declaration of title is implicit in a suit for permanent injunction based on title, no justification is there for amendment of the suit by specifically incorporating the relief of declaration of title. The amendment sought rather appears to be mala fide because the suit is pending before the trial court for arguments and by way of this amendment, the plaintiff wants to have a denovo trial of the suit. Therefore, the order of learned trial court dismissing the application for amendment of plaint suffers from no illegality. Civil Revision No. 5691 of 2011 --5-- Consequently, the revision petition is found to have no merit and is dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.09.2011 dinesh