IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1408 of 2010 Date of decision : August 30, 2010 Prem Chand alias Prem Singh ....Petitioner versus Gian Devi and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent nos. 2 and 3 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 29.1.2010, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hansi, thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Trial court has dismissed the amendment application as the amendment application is inherently vague and ambiguous and is not decipherable. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner states that amendment application Annexure P/2 may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner-plaintiff to file fresh one. Civil Revision No. 1408 of 2010 -2- The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 3. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. Perusal of amendment application Annexure P/2 reveals that the said application is very vague and not decipherable. No head and tail is made out on reading of the application as to what amendment the plaintiff wants to seek. In these circumstances, ends of justice would be met if prayer of plaintiff-petitioner is allowed on payment of costs. Accordingly, the instant revision is allowed and impugned order dated 29.1.2010, Annexure P/1 passed by learned trial court is set aside and amendment application Annexure P/2 moved by plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of plaint is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the plaintiff-petitioner to move fresh application for amendment of plaint subject to payment of Rs 5000/- as costs precedent to respondents no. 2 and 3. If any such fresh application for amendment of plaint is moved, the same shall be decided by the trial court, in accordance with law. No opinion is being expressed in this order regarding the merits of the same. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 30, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'