Civil Revision No. 2973 of 2010 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2973 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.5.2010 Ranbir Singh ..... Petitioner vs Smt. Sukhwati and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. K. C. Rajput, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 21.4.2010 passed by the learned court below, whereby the application of the petitioner-plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. The petitioner/ plaintiff filed suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the respondents on 24.2.1999, challenging the will dated 27.5.1995 executed by Smt. Giano Devi in favour of respondent no. 1 as well as the sales in favour of respondents no. 2 to 5 and claimed himself to be owner-in-possession of five plots measuring 755 square yards. The evidence of the petitioner was closed on 20.9.2004. It is at the fag end of the trial that application was filed seeking amendment of plaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that amendment sought to be made by the petitioner-plaintiff in the suit is necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. The effort of the court is always to decide the lis between the parties on merits. The technicalities should not come in the way of the substantial justice. The delay, if any, caused on account of filing of amendment application can be compensated with cost payable to the other party. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Initially the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 24.2.1999 seeking declaration that will dated 27.5.1995 and the mutation entered in favour of respondent no. 1 and further subsequent sale- Civil Revision No. 2973 of 2010 (2) deed were null and void. The case of the plaintiff was based on will dated 14.6.1991 executed by Giano Devi in his favour. The amendment was sought at the fag end. Earlier the petitioner had also filed application for permitting him to withdraw the suit with permission to file afresh one. However, the same was declined. By way of amendment, a complete new story is sought to be put on the basis alleged agreement to sell dated 14.6.1991 executed by Giano Devi in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and delivery of possession in terms thereof. The plea that the will earlier projected by the petitioner was out of love and affection, was sought to be deleted. Learned counsel could not raise any argument to justify that a suit filed for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 14.6.1991 would be within limitation now. Further the kind of amendment, which is sought to be made by the petitioner-plaintiff, will certainly change the nature of the suit. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 6.5.2010 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge