IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 180 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: February 16, 2011 Surjit Singh @ Jeet Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Daropati Devi .. Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala declining the application for amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal. The facts in the background of the case are that a civil suit was decided by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala on 14.2.2006 against which the appeal is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-appellant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement for taking plea that the pronote and receipt was the result of fraud. The respondent Daropati Devi wife of Gopal Dass along with Sohan Lal, Pawan Kumar, Raj Kumar sons of Chhaju Ram, Kulwant Rai, Darshan Kumar, Prem Chand, Bhim Sain, Bhushan Kumar sons of Brij Lal and Gopal Dass her husband along with Gurcharan Singh Lamberdar, Kashmir Singh, Kundan Singh, Bhushan Kumar Muneem, Sukhdashan Singh son of Babar Singh and Gagandeep had formed a group and used to commit fraud on the innocent persons. This promissory note and receipt dated 3.11.2000 are also the result of fraud, therefore, the petitioner has sought to take the above said plea in order to prove the fraud on the part of the respondents. Arguments heard. Record perused. The copy of the judgment dated 14.2.2006 indicates that this plea has already been taken by the petitioner earlier at the time of filing of the written statement. He had set up the plea in the preliminary objection of Civil Revision No. 180 of 2011 -2- *** his written statement that the pronote and the receipt are forged and fabricated documents and are the result of fraud in connivance with the aforesaid persons. As such, appellate court has rightly declined the application having been filed just to prolong the adjudication of the appeal. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. February 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge