Civil Revision No. 2158 of 2008 -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2158 of 2008 Date of decision: 07.05.2009. Mukut Bihari Sanghi and another Petitioners Versus Mata Masani and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.L.Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate for Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the respondents No.2,5,6 and 10. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. In the course of the plaint, the number of relevant mutation was mentioned 2358. The plaintiffs-petitioners filed a plea, under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend it to read as mutation No.2328. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court which was influenced by the fact that the civil suit pertains to the year 2000 and also because the documentation under reference was to the notice of the plaintiffs-petitioners from the very institution of the suit. It was always influenced by the fact that the matter is mature for recording of rebuttal evidence (and for arguments on merits thereof) Civil Revision No. 2158 of 2008 -2- ***** and as many as 10 opportunities have already been availed of by the plaintiff-petitioner for adducing rebuttal evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners states at the bar that not even an iota of evidence would be adduced by them consequent upon the allowance of the amendment plea and that the grant of the plea would not cause any further delay in the disposal of the suit. Insofar as the delay in filing of the plea is concerned, the learned counsel relies upon Satguru Sri Jajt Singh Ji Vs.Gurjeet Singh alias Harcharan Singh and others 2006 (2) RCR (Civil) 71. That was a case where the plaintiff therein omitted to mention Khasra nos. of the land, possession of which had been applied for by him. He applied for the amendment to introduce the khasra nos. therein. The amendment was applied for after 20 years of the institution of the suit. A Coordinate Bench (Hemant Gupta, J.) of this court allowed that plea by holding that omission to mention khasra nos. was inadvertent and that the plaintiff therein would not have gained anything by that omission. In the present case too, the petitioner would not have gained anything in indicating an incorrect mutation. There is not even an averment that the other contents of the mutation would undergo any change consequent upon the amendment. The petition shall stand allowed accordingly subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs. May 07, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge