IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2640 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 23.4.2010 Chander Bhan ....Petitioner Versus Ranbir Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.10124-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2640 of 2010 The petitioner has impugned the order dated 5.3.2010 by which the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been declined. By way of amendment in a suit which he had already preferred he wanted to challenge a decree allegedly suffered by him in the year 1970 . It is his case that he was born on 18.3.1952 and being a minor he could not have suffered such a decree. It is also his case that the decree was a result of fraud. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the plea of the petitioner is to be accepted that in the year 1970 he was a minor since his date of birth is 18.3.1952, yet he had the option C.R.No.2640 of 2010 (O&M) -2- to challenge the decree after obtaining majority. The decree would have been in knowledge and it cannot be believed that the petitioner was ignorant about it because after the passing of the decree and till the filing of suit the decree would not have been kept in abeyance, rather it would have been acted upon implying parting of possession in favour of the decree-holder and to the detriment of the petitioner. Thus the fact which was known to the petitioner having not been pleaded in the first instance, the same cannot be permitted to be pleaded by way of an amendment, more so when it constitute a separate cause of action which requires to be tested independently in view of the peculiar facts noted above. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 23.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss