Civil Revision No.6729 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6729 of 2011 Date of Decision : 08.12.2011 Shri Purshotam Dass .......Petitioner Versus Smt. Krishna Devi and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jaswant Jain and Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocates, for the respondents. **** JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (ORAL) The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.09.2011, (Annexure P-4) vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPCP, filed by the petitioner-plaintiff has been dismissed. Heard. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that Krishna Devi, defendant No.1 is not the owner in possession of the suit property. She got executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 vide Vasika No.5307 to 5309, without having any ownership right, and the disputed property vests with the Mandir Murli Manohar. 1 Civil Revision No.6729 of 2011 It is averred that while typing the plaint, the word ‘owner’ was wrongly typed in the plaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be upheld. Without adverting to the merits of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the correction sought appears to be bona fide on the face of it and if the relief prayed for is not granted, the whole purpose of filing the suit would be frustrated. Any amendment of plaint clarifying the case of party should be allowed at any stage of the suit particularly when no further evidence is required to be produced. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers Vs. Narayanswamy & Sons, 2010(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 27, Hon’ble the Apex Court laid down the following principles to be taken into consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for amendment:- (1) Whether the amendment sought 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 any 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 2 Civil Revision No.6729 of 2011 (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 exercise should never be taken 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.” In view of the above, the present revision petition is allowed; the impugned order (Annexure P-4) is set aside; and the application dated 30.08.2011, under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code is allowed. The amended plaint shall be filed by the plaintiff in the trial Court, which will be subject to the payment of `5,000/- as costs. ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) 08.12.2011 JUDGE atulsethi Note: Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes/No 3