Civil Revision No.5103 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5103 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.02.2009 Bhim Singh .............. Petitioner Vs. Vinod Kumar & another ............Respondents Present: Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The application for amendment was ordered by the Court below and the Court had directed the case to be posted to 10.08.2007 for filing the amended title and to take notice to the newly added defendant. The case was again called on 10.08.2007 but found that the plaintiff had not filed the amended title and the request for adjournment was accepted and it was again posted to 14.08.2007. The Court found on that date that the amended title had not been filed and passed an order stating that the order of amendment allowed in favour of plaintiff does not benefit the plaintiff and his amended plaint cannot be taken on file and the suit reverts to the original plaint. The application was moved by the plaintiff pointing out to certain inadvertent lapses on his part and seeking for permission to bring the amendment and to file the amended plaint. The Court rejected the Civil Revision No.5103 of 2007 (O&M) -2- application and the aggrieved plaintiff is the revision petitioner before this Court. 2. The time before when a party could carry out the amendment is spelt out in Order 6 Rule 18 CPC. If there is a period prescribed, the party shall carry it out within such period or if no period is prescribed, it shall be within 14 days from the date of the date of order. Admittedly, a date had been given by the Court but the amendment was not carried out. The suit itself is for specific performance and the plaintiff is seeking for amendment to implead a party who had purchased the property subsequent to the institution of the suit. Evidently, it is a transaction which is hit by lis pendens and no serious prejudice could be caused even if the party sought to be impleaded is not impleaded. The plaintiff has not availed of an opportunity given by the Court and having regard to the particular fact that no serious prejudice could be said to be caused to the plaintiff, the request made by him before the Court below was justifiably refused and there is no scope for interference in revision. 3. The civil revision petition is dismissed in above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 17, 2009 Pankaj*