IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4375 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.10.2010 Ravinder .... Petitioner Versus Chet Ram ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present : Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.R. Hooda, Advocate for the respondent 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Appellant-defendant has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 18.5.2010 passed by Appellate Court/Addl. District Judge, Sonepat whereby application moved by the appellant- defendant seeking amendment in the written statement was declined. Learned Appellate Court has rightly observed in the impugned order that question pertaining to the maintainability of the suit has already been taken in the written statement, hence, amendment sought for the maintainability of the suit is irrelevant. I do not find any fault with this finding. Learned Court below has further observed that defendant can file documents under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and there is no need to take pleadings regarding the revenue Court proceedings. This finding is perfectly justified. C.R. No. 4375 of 2010 2 Learned counsel for the parties fairly stated that if petitioner is permitted to place on record certified copy of the proceedings of Assistant Collector Ist Grade then there would be no need of amendment. Dismissed with liberty to place on record certified copies of the revenue proceedings before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade after obtaining permission from the Court below under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. (ALOK SINGH) 27.10.2010 JUDGE reena