Judgment · High Court

Present: Mr. Mukesh M. Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. +CM No. 155 17/2011 (exemption) in CM(M) No. 968/2011 * Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions. CM(M) No. 968/2011 and CM No. 155 16/2011 (stay) The order impugned before this court is the order dated

09.08.2011 wherein the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') of the plaintiff had been allowed. While allowing the application, the court in its discretion had imposed a cost of 20,000/- . This is the grievance of the petitioner before this court. Record shows that the suit has been filed in the year 2008; one application for amendment of the plaint had been allowed in January 2009; vide the impugned order the second amendment in the plaint had been allowed. A perusal of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code shows that the amendment allowed was qua the valuation of the suit; para 20 had been amended and for the consequential relief of possession, the suit had been valued at 10 lakhs as had been mentioned in the sale deed. This was the amendment which had been permitted; as a consequence thereto para 7 and 8 had also been amended. The impugned order in no manner suffers from any infirmity. Provisions of the Code give ample power to the court to Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. impose cost while allowing the amendment. Petition is dismissed. AUGUST 23, 2011 INDERMEET KAUR, J.