IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No. 280 of 2007 Date of Decision: 24.4.2008 ________________________________________________________________ Shamsher Singh ….. Petitioner Versus Smt. Manu Arora & anr … Respondents. ________________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.1 Mr. N.K.Thakur, Advocate, for Respondent No.2. ________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). This petition is directed against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div), Court No.1 Una, whereby he has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner ( defendant No.1) before the trial Court for amendment of the written statement. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract of an agreement to sell dated 4.6.2001 alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff Smt. Manu Arora (respondent No.1 herein) with the present petitioner- defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 on appearance took up a plea that he had already sold the land in question to defendant No.2. Thereafter the suit was contested. Now the defendant No.1 wants to amend the written statement. The disputes raised in the amended written statement are inter se the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 and have no connection with the main suit filed by the plaintiff. By means of the proposed amendment, the defendant No.1 wants to bring in certain facts with regard to the valuation at which the property was sold. According to him, the sale was not for Rs.16,500/- but for Rs. 6,16,500/-. There is no explanation as to why these facts were not stated in the original written statement. The explanation given is that he was duped by the defendants. This is not supported by any document on record. In the absence of any explanation as to why these facts could not be stated before the commencement of the trial, the application for amendment could not have been allowed. In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the order of the learned trial Court. The petition is dismissed. April 24, 2008. ( Deepak Gupta),J. s.