Civil Revision No.4427 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.4427 of 2011 Date of Decision: 25.7.2011 Sukhwinder Singh …Petitioner Versus Malwinder Singh and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sushil Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition is filed against the impugned order dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure P2), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur, whereby the application, filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for amendment of the plaint, has been accepted. In the said application, it was stated that the plaintiffs/respondents have earlier filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners and partners of a Bus bearing registration No. PB-11-F-8895 and its route permit was from Bhawanigarh to Dhuri. Therefore, they sought permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant restraining him from interfering in their business. It is further stated that subsequently, due to intervention of the police, possession of the bus was handed over to the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, they prayed for an amendment in the head note of the plaint and the payer clause that they be allowed to amend the suit and pray for mandatory injunction directing the petitioner/defendant to handover the aforesaid bus and its documents to the plaintiffs/respondents to carry on their business being the partners. Civil Revision No.4427 of 2011 2 They have also prayed in alternative that a declaration be made that they are owners and partners of the bus in question. In consonance with the amendment of the head note and the prayer clause, the plaintiffs/respondents sought insertion of paragraph No.5A and amendment of paragraph No.7 of the suit. The trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 21.5.2011, held that since subsequent event was to be brought to the notice of the Court, the amendment was necessary as it would save the parties from multiplicity of the litigation. The trial Court further held that the suit is at a very initial stage, therefore, it allowed the amendment. In the present petition, a grievance has been made that the amendment has been allowed after filing of the written statement and the same was allowed to deprive the petitioner of the defence which they have disclosed in the written statement. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, this Court is of the view that since subsequent event was to be introduced in the plaint, the amendment was necessary. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the bus was taken illegally and forcibly by the petitioner/defendant with the help of police, during pendency of proceedings, therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order. It suffers from no infirmity especially when the proposed amendment will save the parties from multiplicity of the litigation. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 25, 2011 “DK”