C.R. No.5772 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.5772 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 9.9.2010 Balbir ……Petitioner VERSUS Piare Lal ……Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kaithal, whereby an application moved by the defendant (petitioner herein) seeking amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Brief facts of the present case inter-alia are that plaintiff (respondent herein) had filed a suit against the defendant on 13.9.2006. Defendant/petitioner had filed his written statement on 1.3.2007 stating therein that possession of the defendant is legal and continuous for 12 years and defendant has become owner in posses- sion by adverse possession. C.R. No.5772 of 2010 (O&M) -2- 3. Undisputedly, issues have already been framed in the suit and plaintiff’s evidence has already been closed. After the plaintiff’s evidence, amendment application was moved by the defendant/peti- tioner seeking permission to incorporate the plea in the written state- ment to the effect that in a family partition, father of the defendant/pe- titioner had given possession of the property in dispute to him in the year 1985. Learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.8.2010 rejected the amendment application moved by the defendant/peti- tioner. 4. Undisputedly, hearing of the suit has already been com- menced and suit is listed for the defendant’s evidence. Defendant/petitioner at the initial stage had taken the plea of adverse possession and had never taken any plea of family partition. Neither in the application for amendment nor in the grounds of revision peti- tioner has explained that inspite of due diligence defendant/petitioner could not take this plea. Moreover, plea sought to be raised by way of proposed amendment seems to be afterthought. In view of the proviso of Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C., amendment application was rightly dismissed. No interference is called for. 5. Petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. ( ALOK SINGH ) 09th September, 2010 JUDGE ashish