In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5367 of 2008 Date of decision: July 14, 2009 Thana Singh .. Petitioner Vs. The Talwandi Sabo Black Rural Coop. House Building Society Limited and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the respondent No.4-Insurance Company. A.N. Jindal, J This petition is directed against the order dated 6.8.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Talwandi Sabo, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. It has been urged that the plaintiff due to inadvertence has mentioned the date of collapse of house as July, 2004, whereas, the actual date of collapse was 21.9.2003, therefore, he wants to mention the date of collapse as 21.9.2003. On the other hand, Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the Insurance Company-respondent No.4 has argued that the insurance policy for the said house was issued to the plaintiff on 15.11.2002 to 14.11.2003. The house never collapsed during this period and even according to the averments in the plaint it collapsed after the period of the policy had expired and if this date is allowed to be changed in the written statement, then it would amount to withdrawal of vital admission and cause serious prejudice to them. Heard. No doubt, initially the plaintiff gave the date of collapse of the house as 24.7.2004 in the plaint and now he wants to improve upon his plaint by stating that the house collapsed on 21.9.2003. But, the plaintiff Civil Revision No. 5367 of 2008 -2- *** pleads that this date was mentioned due to inadvertence. Without commenting on the merits of the case, the plaintiff could be allowed to amend the plaint by changing the date, however, this amendment would certainly amounts to improvement to his earlier statement and if the amendment is allowed to be made, then certainly the respondent No.4 would be seriously prejudiced as the plaintiff wants to put in his policy within the period when it was alive. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. July 14, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge