Civil Revision No.2456 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2456 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.2.2009 Sunil Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus Ram Krishan ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Anuj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate the respondents S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession, by way of ejectment of defendants-petitioners from the house under reference, by placing reliance upon a notification dated 7.11.2002. In the course of the trial, the plaintiff-respondent filed a plea for amendment to obtain the leave of the Court to correct the date of notification as 24.9.1973 (instead of 7.11.2002). The plea, in support of the application, was that the incorrect date came to be mentioned on account of a typographical error. The plea was opposed by the defendants-petitioners by arguing that the allowance of the amendment would enable the plaintiff- respondent to change the nature of the proceedings. It is common ground otherwise that the competent authority had indeed issued both the notifications ( dated 7.11.2002 and 24.9.1973), vide which certain exemption was provided from the applicability of the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1974, read with Government of India notification No. S.O. Civil Revision No.2456 of 2008 -2- *** 22(E) dated 8th January, 1975. Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners argues that the proposed amendment shall change the very nature of the suit and obviously affect them as the initially indicated date of notification was incorrect. It is common ground otherwise that a notice of ejectment has to be served in the first instance before an ejectment plea can be filed. In the notice, the date of notification presently indicated was 7.11.2002. There is no request for leave of the Court to correct that date. Infact, no such request would be competent before the Court. In that view of things, there is no warrant for the proposition that allowance of the request for amendment would put the defendants-petitioners to a disadvantage because they would still be able to argue the lacunae in the notice. In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. February 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge