IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6492 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : 08.12.2009. Surjit Singh .....Petitioner versus Malkiat Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.S.K.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.V.K.Shukla, 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? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the defendant against the order dated 11.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Zira, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, counsel for the parties have been heard and the impugned order perused. The petitioner and the respondent both are real brothers. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioner-defendant from interfering in any manner in the alleged peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the disputed plot, situated in C.R. No.6492 of 2008 (O&M) 2 the abadi deh of village Bhinder Kalan, Tehsil Zira, District Ferozepur. He also sought a decree for mandatory injunction to direct the petitioner- defendant to reconstruct the portion of the drain allegedly demolished by him. During the pendency of the suit and after the respondent-plaintiff had concluded his evidence, the petitioner-defendant moved an application for amendment of the written statement in order to plead that the plot in question was purchased by him by way of a registered sale deed. The amendment has been declined by the trial Court after observing that this fact was in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he filed the written statement. In my considered view, the petitioner wants to introduce a clarificatory amendment only by referring to the registered sale deed. The learned trial Court ought to have allowed such an amendment as neither it will change the nature of suit nor stand already taken by the petitioner. The amendment was permissible also for the reason that the suit was filed prior to the 2002 amendment in the Civil Procedure Code. While allowing such a clarificatory amendment, the trial Court could give an opportunity to the respondent-plaintiff also to show that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner-defendant does not pertain to the plot in dispute. For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 11.10.2008 is set-aside and the petitioner- defendant is permitted to file the amended written statement by incorporating the averments regarding the registered sale deed allegedly in his favour. The respondent-plaintiff shall also be entitled to file rejoinder C.R. No.6492 of 2008 (O&M) 3 thereto to take up a plea that the said sale deed does not pertain to the plot in dispute. If need arises, the respondent-plaintiff shall be given one opportunity to substantiate his plea. The petitioner shall also pay cost of Rs.2000/- to the plaintiff-respondent. Dasti. 08-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE