C.R.No.4798 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4798 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.8.2011 Rajinder and another ….Petitioners Vs. Smt Rajkali and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant Nos.2 & 3-petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (P.6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 4 for amendment of the plaint has been allowed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a Civil Suit No.214 dated 17.5.2010 for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction restraining the defendant Nos.2 & 3-petitioners as well as defendant No.1-respondent No.5 herein from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land described in para 3 of the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs- respondent Nos.1 to 4. Upon notice, the same was opposed by filing reply. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court has allowed the application vide the impugned order, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned trial C.R.No.4798 of 2011 #2# Court has grossly erred while allowing the application filed by the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 4 as the same will change the nature of the case, which is not at all permissible under law. It is further argued that in case, the impugned order is not set aside, the case of the petitioners shall be gravely prejudiced. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. In para 2 of the plaint, the plaintiffs-respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted as under: “That the father of the plaintiff Sh. Genda Ram was recorded in possession of land measuring 9K-14M vide Khewat No.256, min/227 min, Khatoni No.372, Khasra No.85/2 min (6-14), 85/3 (3-0), situated at Indri, Tehsil Indri, Distt Karnal vide Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” Now, proposed amendment to be added as Para 2-A in the plaint reads as under: “That the father of the plaintiff Sh. Genda Ram was also recorded in possession as co-sharer of land measuring 750K-2M comprised in Khewat No.256/227 min, khatoni No.370, rect. No.85/2 min (750-2), 85/5 (0-7), situated in village Indri, Distt Karnal vide Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006. Copy of Jamabandi for the year 2005-2006 is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.” Further prayer has also been made to change the title of the plaint as under: “Suit for declaration with mandatory injunction alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction” Defendant-petitioners opposed the abovesaid amendments C.R.No.4798 of 2011 #3# mainly on the ground that the same will change the nature of the case. In para 4 of the application, it was specifically submitted that no prejudice will be caused to the other party but in reply thereto, the defendant-petitioners have simply submitted that this para is wrong and denied without specifically explaining the incorrectness of the same. A perusal of the paper book reveals that the Civil Suit was filed on 17.5.2010 and the issues are yet to be framed and thus the trial is yet to commence and the defendants-petitioners will get the opportunity to defend their case at the appropriate stage. In my opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality and rightly observed that the proposed amendment will avoid the multiplicity of the litigation. Under these circumstances, the proposed amendment is very much necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 19.7.2011 (P.6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Karnal below warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. August 10, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE