CR No. 282 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 282 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: March 19, 2009 Harjinder Singh .. Petitioner v. Avtar Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Y. M. Bhagirath, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H. S. Dhindsa, Advocate for the respondents. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 8.1.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction claiming himself to be owner in possession of the suit property. After the parties had completed their evidence and the case was fixed for arguments, application for amendment of the plaint was filed to claim that the petitioner-plaintiff had become owner in possession of the suit property on the basis of a family settlement dated 18.6.1987. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the amendment of the plaint is allowed, the same is not going to change the nature of the suit. It is only that another ground has been made for declaration to the effect that the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that amendment at this belated stage should not be allowed as on earlier occasion also, the petitioner had amended the plaint. In fact, it is just a device to fill in the lacuna in the case in which the entire evidence had already been led by the parties. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is not disputed that the family settlement, which is sought to be pleaded now, was well within the knowledge of the petitioner. In fact, what is sought to be pleaded is an oral family settlement, meaning thereby there is no CR No. 282 of 2008 [2] document to that effect. Once the fact, which was already in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit or even when the amendment of the plaint was sought on an earlier occasion, in my opinion, no illegality has been committed by the learned court below in refusing the amendment of the plaint at the fag end of the trial, when the case was fixed for arguments. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.3.2009 mk