Civil Revision No.1862 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1862 of 2009 Date of Decision:01.04.2009 Shingara Ram ....petitioner Versus Chaman Lal & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.M.S.Bal,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Balachaur, whereby application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint has been rejected. It is not in dispute that the trial has already comenced and evidence of the parties is almost complete. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that agreement in question was executed by him with the defendants for a partly constructed marriage palace whereas the same is not a marriage palace but a factory premises and this fact has come to his knowledge during the course of evidence. Thus a fraud has been committed with him and, therefore, he wants to incorporate these facts by way of present amendment. However, while rejecting this prayer of the petitioner the trial Court found that in the written statement filed on 11.06.2007 the defendants had offered to sell the suit property if the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount up to 20.07.2007. In the light of this offer, Civil Revision No.1862 of 2009 2 statements of the parties were recorded but plaintiff came with another plea that defendants were to show the approval of PWD and PUDA regarding the marriage palace and also to show their exclusive ownership in family partition and therefore refused to accept the offer. Not only this, the trial Court also noted that the attorney of the plaintiff on 16.07.2007 stated before the Court that she along with her brother/plaintiff was present when the suit property was seen and agreement was executed. Thus, petitioner was not diligent to seek amendment. Moreover, the petitioner is coming altogether with a new plea which will necessitate de novo trial. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no reason to interfere in the order of the trial Court. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 01.04.2009 neenu