Civil Revision No. 5502 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5502 of 2011 Date of decision. 16.09.2011 Surjit Kaur and others .... Petitioners Versus Gurdev Kaur and others ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Raman Mohinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. This is a revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiffs challenging the order dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sunam whereby their application for amendment of plaint under Order 6 rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed. Observing that the application has been filed after the evidence of the plaintiffs has already been closed without specifying the reason for not bringing the same earlier before the trial of the case started, learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Sunam has dismissed the application. While dismissing the application, learned trial court has taken into account the fact that under the amended CPC only such amendment in the pleadings could be allowed, which could not be Civil Revision No. 5502 of 2011 --2-- sought earlier inspite of exercise of due diligence by the parties. He has placed reliance on two cases in Khushi Ram v. Murli Manohar Thatheran Panchayati Mandir and Dharamsala Society, 2010(2) Civil Court Cases 286 (P&H) & Arjan Singh v. Bachan Singh and others 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 361(P&H) Dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiffs have brought this revision-petition. I have heard Mr. Raman Mohinder Sharma, learned counsel for the revision-petitioners and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioners has submitted that it is a litigation between the sisters. According to him, the petitioners had set up oral family settlement under which respondent no.1 Gurdev Kaur took one acre of good quality land and a sum of Rs.700/- and had relinquished her share in the remaining land. He has further submitted that the said agreement was reduced to writing on 05.07.1983, which was thumb marked by her (respondent no.1). He has submitted that the amendment sought is just clarificatory in nature as no new plea is sought to be added. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has cited before this court two decisions of this court inYakub Ali v. Rubi and others 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 129 & Arjan Singh v. Bachan Singh and others 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 712. He has also submitted that no evidence would be led by the petitioners after this amendment. Civil Revision No. 5502 of 2011 --3-- I have gone through the original plaint. The agreement is stated to have been arrived at between the parties, which was reduced to writing. It is not mentioned therein that the agreement was oral to begin with. This is what the plaintiffs want to introduce by way of this amendment. The amendment sought is, therefore, clarificatory in nature and I find learned trial court not to be justified in declining this prayer. In these circumstances, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 23.05.2011 is set aside, and amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs to the respondents. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 16.09.2011 dinesh