IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 260 of 2011 Date of Decision: 30.8.2011. Smt. Sudha Khera & Ors. …Petitioners. Versus. Sh. Ratanjit Singh & Anr. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the Petitioners: Mr. Naresh Kumar Sood, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. A.K.Sood, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral). 1. By means of this petition, the petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) have challenged the order dated 13.6.2011 whereby the learned trial Court has allowed the amendment prayed for by the plaintiffs as a whole. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) filed a suit alleging therein that they had sold two small plots of land to Shri Rajiv Khera, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants. According to the plaintiffs, a house was constructed on the entire land, but thereafter the defendants encroached upon certain land 2 of the plaintiffs. Now, by means of the amendment, the plaintiffs allege that in fact when two plots of land were sold, mutation qua the second plot was not attested in favour of the defendants and the defendants by misrepresenting facts and by fraudulent means have got another portion of the land belonging to the plaintiffs mutated in their favour. According to the plaintiffs, this was done during the pendency of the present suit and therefore, the application for amendment was filed. 3. I have gone through the application for amendment. There can be no dispute that as far as the averments which relate to the subsequent events are concerned, the amendment has to be allowed keeping in view the fact that the parties were alive to the dispute between them. However, I find that in proposed para 2(a) of the plaint, the plaintiffs have added certain facts which could have been stated by them at the time when they filed the suit, whether the subsequent events had taken place or not. They by amendment cannot now be permitted to add these facts. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiffs cannot be permitted to add para 2(a) as proposed. 4. Similarly with regard to proposed para 2(g), the first line of which reads as follows:- ” x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x That the plaintiffs had also, in a representation to the Collector, Settlement District Shimla, dated 8.3.1999, brought to his notice various acts of commission and omission by the settlement field staff during the conduct of settlement proceedings between the years 1990-1993 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ” 3 This averment cannot be permitted to be brought by way of amendment because this was a fact known to the plaintiffs at the time when the suit was filed. 5. The other amendments sought, relate entirely to the subsequent events or are explanatory to the subsequent events and therefore, the amendments to that extent is allowed. The plaintiffs are directed to file a fresh amended plaint in accordance with the directions of this Court on or before 7.9.2011. Since the defendants are aware of the amendment which has been disallowed they shall file the written statement on the next date i.e. 7th September, 2011. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (Deepak Gupta), Judge August 30,2011. (Krn Guleria)