JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Harbans Singh Batra plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing petitioner’s application Annexure P-5 for amendment of plaint. 2. Plaintiff in the suit alleged that earnest money paid by defendants under agreement to sell Annexure P-1 stood forfeited because of breach of the contract by the defendants. Plaintiff had raised loan by deposit of title deed of the suit property with State Bank of Hyderabad. As per agreement, plaintiff was to repay the dues of the Bank and was to obtain the original title deed from the Bank. In the plaint, the plaintiff pleaded having obtained ‘no objection certificate’ from the Bank and also having shown original title deed to the defendants on 01.02.2006. However, by way of amendment, the plaintiff inter alia wants to plead that after paying outstanding amount of Bank, the plaintiff obtained ‘no dues certificate’ from the Bank on 01.02.2006, but the original title deed was not returned by the Bank to the plaintiff saying that the original title deed had been taken away by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in connection with some case registered against Manager of the Bank. The said amendment application has been rejected by the trial Court, necessitating the filing of the instant revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment application was moved by the plaintiff-petitioner even before the written statement was filed by the defendants/respondents and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint should have been allowed. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that respondents/defendants filed written statement on the same date on which plaintiff-petitioner filed amendment application. It was also contended that in the original plaint, the plaintiff falsely pleaded that he had shown the original title deed to defendants on 01.02.2006. It was also contended that the facts now sought to be pleaded were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff when the suit was filed and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed. It was also contended that in the original plaint, the plaintiff falsely pleaded that he had shown the original title deed to defendants on 01.02.2006. It was also contended that the facts now sought to be pleaded were already in the knowledge of the plaintiff when the suit was filed and therefore, proposed amendment of plaint cannot be allowed. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of N.S. Contructions versus Som Dev, 2006(131) DLT 632 and two judgments of this Court in the cases of Lashkar Singh versus Bhulla Singh, 1998(2) RCR (Civil) 646 and Mansi Devi versus Ram Kishan, 2004(1) LJR 696. 5. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions. 6. As noticed hereinbefore, the suit was at preliminary stage when plaintiff-petitioner moved application for amendment of plaint. Even written statement was filed by the defendants on the same date on which amendment application was moved by the plaintiff. Consequently, proposed amendment should be allowed on payment of cost. Law for amendment of pleadings is very liberal. In the original plaint, the plaintiff pleaded incorrect fact that he had shown the title deed on 01.02.2006 to the defendants whereas on that day, the title deed was not with the plaintiff, but had allegedly been taken away by the CBI from the Bank. The plaintiff by amendment wants to correct the aforesaid pleading and there is no reason why he should not be allowed to do so. It is not question of withdrawing any admission which could be of any favour to the defendants. On the other hand, amendment is sought to plead the correct facts. Since the amendment was sought at the initial stage of the suit, the amendment should be allowed on payment of cost. 7. Judgments cited by counsel for respondents have no applicability to the case in hand. Impugned order of the trial Court, dismissing plaintiff’s application for amendment of plaint, suffers from perversity and illegality as well as jurisdictional error. Trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to allow amendment of plaint. The impugned order, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court is set aside. Trial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction which vested in it to allow amendment of plaint. The impugned order, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure P-7) passed by the trial Court is set aside. Application Annexure P-5 moved by the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment is allowed and plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to make proposed amendment in the plaint, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as cost precedent. --------------