C.R.No.230 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.230 of 2011 Date of decision: 14.1.2011 Jarnail Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Anup Kaur and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Arora,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against order dated 1.10.2010 (P.1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ferozepur vide which an application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration that he is the joint owner of land described in head note of the plaint and mutation No.2848 in favour of the defendants- respondent Nos.1 to 4 is wrong, illegal, null and void without jurisdiction and as such inoperative on the right of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the sale deed dated 11.1.2001 executed by defendants-respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendants-respondent Nos.8 to 11 are wrong and illegal with consequential relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application dated C.R.No.230 of 2011 #2# 22.9.2010 (P.2) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. Upon notice, the application was opposed by the defendants-respondents by filing a separate replies dated 28.9.2010 (P.3 and P.4). After hearing both the parties, the application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 1.10.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the learned trial Court has gravely erred while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC resulting into miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the powers to allow amendments are unfettered vested with the learned trial Court and are meant to be used to advance the interest of justice and not to scuffle the same as the procedural law is handmade to do complete justice between the parties and it should be allowed if the same is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter in controversy. Sohan Singh S/o Surain Singh was father of the plaintiff- petitioner/Jarnail Singh and defendant-respondent Nos.5 to 7, grand-father of respondent Nos.2 to 4, and father-in-law of respondent No.1. Plaintiff- petitioner along with respondent No.6-Fauja Singh filed a civil suit No.25/1 dated 15.1.1991 against their father late Sh. Sohan Singh to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner is owner in possession of land measuring 45 kanal whereas respondent No.6 is owner in possession of land measuring 24 kanal of the land in dispute and the suit was decreed by the then Sub Judge (IIIrd Class), Ferozepur vide judgment and decree dated 23.1.1992. Sohan Singh died on 25.9.1996 and mutation No.2848 regarding the inheritance was entered and sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 7 on the basis of an un- C.R.No.230 of 2011 #3# registered will dated 2.8.1996 alleged to have been executed by Sohan Singh. The plaintiff-petitioner filed present civil suit and challenged the mutation No.2848 as well as sale deed dated 11.1.2001 executed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendants-respondent Nos.8 to 11. It is matter of record that the suit has been filed on 12.1.2001 and the present application for amendment of plaint has been filed on 22.9.2010 i.e after a lapse of nine years and eight months. The parties have already concluded their evidence. Arguments were heard on 20.8.2009 and the case was posted for orders. The impugned sale deed dated 11.1.2001 was executed by defendant-respondent Nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendant- respondent Nos.8 to 11 and the vendees have already taken the possession on the basis of valuable consideration. A perusal of the application for amendment reveals that the plaintiff-petitioner wants to change the plaint materially, which cannot be permitted at this stage in view of the fact that the entire case is over as the arguments were heard on 20.8.2009 and the case was fixed for orders. At this belated stage, in my opinion, the application for amendment is not maintainable and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the same. In these circumstances, this court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.) while dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Dismissed. January 14, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE C.R.No.230 of 2011 #4#