C.R. No. 2998 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2998 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2010 ... Smt.Chanchal Kumari ................Petitioner vs. Arjun Shah Singh and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against order dated 8.4.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 has been allowed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and by the proposed amendment, he wanted to amend the plaint so as to seek relief of specific performance with consequential relief of permanent injunction. That application was resisted and was ultimately dismissed. The plaintiff C.R. No. 2998 of 2010 -2- filed a revision petition before this Court and this Court vide order dated 26.11.2009 accepted the revision petition by holding that trial Court has committed an error by giving finding on merit and remitted back the case to the trial Court to consider the application afresh in accordance with law. The learned trial Court vide its detailed impugned order accepted the application by holding that plaintiff simply wants to amend the title of the suit and prayer clause alongwith the introduction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in default and during that period defendant No.1-petitioner has sold the property and as such third party has intervened. So, the amendment should not be allowed. He has further contended that trial Court has simply allowed the application to amend only title of the suit and prayer clause but has not considered the fact that para No. 11 (A) is to be added. I have carefully considered the said submission and have also gone through the record of the case. Para No. 11 (A) sought to be added is in consonance with the amendment in title clause and prayer clause. The trial Court has exercised its jurisdiction. Revisional Court can only interfere if any illegality has been committed by the trial Court. There is nothing on the file that by allowing the amendment, the trial Court has committed an illegality. Otherwise also, the law of amendment is very liberal. So far as authority reported as Mansi Devi vs. Ram Kishan 2004 (1) LJR 696, relied upon by counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, in that case, the amendment was sought to claim relief of C.R. No. 2998 of 2010 -3- mesne profits, which had already become time barred. No such cause has arisen in the present case. So, no ground for interference is made out. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 6.5.2010 Judge chugh