-1- Civil Revision No.7244 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Date of Decision: February 16, 2011. Civil Revision No.7244 of 2010 Nanak Chand and another ... Petitioners. VERSUS Narinder Kumar and another ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 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 ? Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Satbir Rathore, Advocate, for the respondents. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Plaintiff Khan Chand son of Nand Lal died during the pendency of the instant suit filed by him against the defendants- respondents for permanent injunction in respect of the property in dispute, mentioned in para No.1 of the plaint praying for issuing a -2- Civil Revision No.7244 of 2010 restraint order against the defendants-petitioners restraining them not to interfere in the suit property. After his death, Nanak Chand and Ram Kishan sons of Nand Lal, who are brothers of the original plaintiff, were impleaded as plaintiffs. They filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the defendants-respondents, after the death or original plaintiff, took advantage of the fact that his (original plaintiff's) legal heirs were not residing at Ladwa District Kurukshetra and took possession of the property in dispute illegally and forcibly. This application for amendment was declined by the trial Court. The plaintiffs- petitioners have filed this revision petition challenging this order of the trial Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I do not see any ground warranting interference in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. In the written statement filed by defendant No.2 on 23.5.2006 to the plaint, it was specifically pleaded that an agreement to sell dated 27.12.2004 in respect of the suit property was entered into by the original plaintiff with defendant No.2 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- and that it was agreed that if the original plaintiff failed to get the sale deed executed at the asking of defendant No.2, then he (defendant No.2) would have an option to get the sale deed executed through the process of Court at the cost and expense of the original plaintiff. It was also mentioned in para No.2 of the written statement that the possession of suit property -3- Civil Revision No.7244 of 2010 had been given by the original plaintiff to defendant No.2 at the time of entering into the agreement to sell after receiving the entire sale consideration. No doubt, Khan Chand (original plaintiff), in the replication filed to the written statement of defendant No.2, took the plea that the agreement in question did not create any right, title or interest in favour of the defendants nor the said agreement was executed by him (Khan Chand), but the plaintiffs- petitioners, who are the legal heirs of Khan Chand cannot be allowed the amendment as prayed for because the trial Court will decide the suit on the basis of pleadings already before it and on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. The trial Court rightly declined the prayer for amendment of the plaintiffs- petitioners. Dismissed. ( MOHINDER PAL ) February 16, 2011. JUDGE ak