SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 13, 2009 Ranjit Singh ........ Appellant Versus Kabal Singh and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. P P S Duggal, Advocate for the appellant -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) C.M. No. 18783 CII of 2009 Allowed as prayed for. C.M. No. 18784 CII of 2009 This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 3 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of 3 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application is accordingly allowed. Main case Vide an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Procedure, the only amendment sought to be made, is that the name of father of the respondent has been wrongly mentioned in the plaint as Kabal Singh son of Banta Singh, whereas his father's name is Pala Singh. The aforesaid prayer was disposed off vide order dated 04.05.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur with following directions:- “......present application for amendment stands allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1000/- and following issue is being framed: Whether the plaintiff who gave his name as Kabal Singh son of Banta Singh in the plaint is the same person with whom the agreement dated 12.09.1998 had been executed? OPP Since the said issue requires evidence to be adduced by the parties, as such I remit the present case to the trial Court with a direction that parties shall be given two opportunities each to lead evidence on this issue and that too within period of 15 days from the date the file is received by the trial court and findings on this issue be made within two months. The trial court shall remit the findings on this issue to this on or before 20.07.2009.” Learned counsel for the appellant states that through the aforesaid amendment, the plaint is being rectified, which should not be allowed after the trial was over and at the appellate stage. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and also taking into account the judgements as referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in the grounds of appeal, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned SAO No. 40 of 2009 (O&M) 3 order dated 04.05.2009, vide which the application for amendment was allowed, specially taking into account the fact that the same has been allowed with a direction to the trial court to submit its findings on the issue framed above within two months, after affording equal number of opportunities to the parties for adducing evidence on the issue. The direction shows that the amendment shall be effective only when the issue in question is decided in favour of the plaintiff. In view of the above, I find no grievance has been caused to the appellant, and as such, the judgements referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the dispute with respect to the name of the father of plaintiff requires to be clarified to avoid any confusion and ambiguity. The present appeal is dismissed. It is, however, made clear that any observation made in this case shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge August 13, 2009 mohan