C.R.No.815 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.815 of 2009. Decided on: November 26, 2009. J.S.Arora .. Petitioner VERSUS The Chief Manager and others .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Satija, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated 03.11.2008, an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been dismissed. The plaintiff-petitioner had sought the amendment of certain facts and figures pertaining to the area which had been leased out by the petitioner to the defendants-respondents' bank, to claim rent as per the area of the leased out shop-cum-flat. The trial . . . 1 C.R.No.815 of 2009 Court had dismissed the application on the ground that in case the amendment is permitted, the plaintiff will be given an opportunity to raise a time barred claim. The trial Court held that the cause of action had arisen at the time of the execution of the Lease Deed dated 09.06.1999, as such the application for amendment moved on 15.03.2004, will be barred by time. Counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the revision petition contending that in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ajendraprasadji N.Pande and another Vs.Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N.& Ors., AIR 2007 (S.C.) 806, amendment of the pleadings cannot be allowed when the trial has commenced, in view of the amended provisions of CPC. In the present case, the suit had been filed in the year 2001, whereas the amended provisions under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, came into force vide Act No.22 of 2002. Even otherwise, if an amendment is necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties, the same can be permitted to be incorporated in the pleadings. The plaintiff-petitioner, in the present case, is landlord of a shop-cum-flat, which has been leased out by him to the defendants-respondents. The petitioner claims that the measurements which are sought to be incorporated regarding the building leased out are in consonance with the terms of the Lease Deed whereas counsel for the respondents has contended that the said descriptions are different from the one given in the Lease Deed. . . . 2 C.R.No.815 of 2009 Without entering into the said controversy, it is observed that the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner are to be determined on the basis of the evidence led by him in context the pleadings. Mere permission to add certain descriptions and measurements will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the defendants-respondents. The trial Court has to determine the relief which could be granted to the petitioner on the basis of the evidence produced. Mere allowing the amendment will not tantamount to admitting the averments in the plaint. The trial Court seem to have been erred in presuming that modification of the measurements in the pleadings will be bared by limitation. It will always be open to the respondents to contest the pleas taken in the amended plaint. For the inconvenience caused to the defendants, the defendants can be compensated with costs. The impugned order dated 03.11.2008, is hereby set aside. The amendment sought for by the plaintiff-petitioner is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/-, to the respondents. The trial Court will permit amendment only subject to the payment of costs by the plaintiff-petitioner on 19.12.2009, before the trial Court. It is made clear that in case the cost is not paid, this revision will be deemed to have been dismissed. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 26, 2009. rka . . . 3