Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2009 Date of decision : April 26, 2010 Sant Singh ....Petitioner versus Bahadur Singh ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. RS Modi, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant Sant Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.2.2009, Annexure P/1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, thereby dismissing defendant's application Annexure P/2 for amendment of written statement. Respondent Bahadur Singh filed suit for permanent injunction and declaration alleging that he has become owner of the suit property by adverse possession. Defendant pleaded in the written statement that he is in possession of the suit property since agreement dated 31.10.1996 entered into with original owners Satpal Prabhakar and Smt. Raj Prabhakar. Various other pleas were also raised. Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2009 -2- Defendant was allowed to amend his written statement earlier by the trial court to add that the original owners had received consideration of Rs 10,000/- from the defendant at the time of execution of the aforesaid agreement. Now the defendant by way of amendment wants to further add that the defendant entered into possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement to sell dated 31.10.1996 and he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and he has also constructed boundary wall around the suit property after he entered into possession and entire sale consideration stands paid to the vendor. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that law of amendment of pleadings is liberal and amendment cannot be denied merely on the ground of delay and plaintiff/respondent can be compensated by way of costs. It was also contended that the defendant is not raising new plea by amendment but is only elucidating the plea already taken in the written statement. Reliance in support of the contentions has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the following judgments namely Andhra Bank versus ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Ors, 2007(3) RCR (Civil) 585; Joginder Singh versus Darshan Singh, 1999(3) Civil court Cases 495 (P&H) ; State of A.P. & Ors versus M/s Pioneer Builders, A.P., 2007(1) Apex Court Judgments 022 (S.C.) ; Ramchandra Sakhram Mahajan versus Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (D) & Ors 2007 (2) Apex Court Judgements 421 (S.C.) and Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Versus Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., 2007(2) Apex Court Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2009 -3- Judgments 273 (S.C.). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the suit is pending since 3.3.1998 i.e. for the last 12 years. The defendant was allowed to amend his written statement earlier vide order dated 16.5.2008 and immediately thereafter the defendant moved application Annexure P/2 dated 18.7.2008 for further amendment of the written statement. It was also pleaded that the suit was at the stage of final arguments when amendment application was moved. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Law of amendment of pleadings is quite liberal. In the case of amendment of written statement, the law is more liberal than in the case of amendment of plaint. As per ratio of law laid down in the judgments noticed hereinabove, the amendment cannot be disallowed merely on the ground of delay. In case of Ramchandra Sakhram Mahajan (supra) amendment of plaint for the second time was also allowed. In the instant case, the defendant is not taking any new plea by amendment but his basic plea remains that he had entered into possession of the suit land in view of agreement dated 31.10.1996 entered into with the original land owners and he is in possession of the suit property since then. Consequently, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff/respondent by proposed amendment and the plaintiff very well can be compensated by way of costs. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find that the impugned order dated 21.2.2009, Annexure P/1, passed by learned trial court is not sustainable. The revision petition is accordingly allowed and impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by learned trial court is set aside and application Annexure P/2 moved by defendant/petitioner for amendment of written Civil Revision No. 2751 of 2009 -4- statement is allowed subject to payment of Rs 5000/- as costs precedent. It is also noticed that learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has stated that after amendment of written statement, the defendant would conclude his evidence at his own responsibility by availing only one opportunity. ( L.N. Mittal ) April 26, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'