C.R.No.2130 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.2130 of 2010 Date of decision: 30.3.2010 Municiapl Council, Jind .....Petitioner vs. Vidya Devi ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr. Sanjay S.Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. -- Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.2.2010 whereby application for amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the suit of the plaintiff-respondent is being contested by the petitioner on the ground that plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit property and had encroached upon the public street. As per the amendment application, the property in dispute was earlier owned by Ramkali wife of Madan Lal and Bhanti Devi wife of Chiranji Lal. Smt.Ramkali filed civil suit No.526 of 1998 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering in their possession. The above said civil suit titled as Krishan Kumar and others v. Municipal Committee, Jind, was dismissed on 02.12.2000. Subsequently, Smt.Ramkali died and the property was transferred by way of decree dated 16.11.1990 C.R.No.2130 of 2010 2 passed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge,Jind in the name of Kamlesh. The present respondent has purchased the suit property from aforesaid Kamlesh. According to the petitioner, the decree dated 16.11.1990 passed in civil Suit No.721 of 12.11.1990 by virtue of which predecessor- in-interest of the plaintiff namely, Kamlesh became the owner of the property was not to its knowledge and she was not competent to execute and register the sale deed No.1287 dated 30.9.1994, as she was not the owner of the suit property. The petitioner also wanted to implead Smt.Bhanti Devi wife of Chiranji Lal as Lal as Bhanti Devi was also the plaintiff in the earlier case decided on 2.12.2000 and was co-owner of the back portion of the disputed property. It was also pleaded that due to clerical mistake in the written statement land measuring 12'x12' was written whereas it ought to have been written 12ftx24ft as per decree dated 16.11.1990 passed in Civil Suit No.721 of 12.11.1990. It has been argued before this Court that the aforesaid amendments are necessary for the just decision of the case and no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff-respondent as the suit is still at the stage of defendants' evidence, and, therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside and the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement be allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The issues in the instant case were framed on 12.2.2008, and thereafter the plaintiff has already completed her evidence so much so, part of the evidence of the petitioner has also been completed and it was only after availing three opportunities that the present application for amendment C.R.No.2130 of 2010 3 was filed. In the application for amendment, petitioner has not submitted that despite having due diligence it had no opportunity to ascertain the defect in the title of the vendor of the plaintiff-respondent. Moreover, the defendants in their written statements have denied the title of the plaintiff claiming the suit property to be a part of the passage as comprised in khasra No.172/28. It is settled law that evidence need not be pleaded in the plaint even without amending the written statement still the petitioner will be competent to lead the evidence in order to show the defect in the title of the plaintiff. It may also be noticed that the application does not appear to have been filed in a bona fide manner and if the amendment is allowed the same will cause injustice to the other side and will open a de novo trial of the case which is at the fag end. No merit. Dismissed. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge March 30, 2010 rk