Civil Revision No. 4733 of 2007 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4733 of 2007 Date of decision: 08.05.2009. Sukhwinder Singh and others Petitioner Versus Surjit Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P.K.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioners before this Court are plaintiffs whose plea for the amendment of plaint did not find favour with the learned Trial Court. By means of the proposed amendment, the plaintiffs- petitioners wanted to make an averment that they are co-sharers in the land in suit. The learned Trial Court held that the allowance of the plea shall enable them to wriggle out of the admission made by them in the course of the pleadings at the trial. In holding that view, the learned Trial Court was also influenced by the fact that the present was 3rd amendment plea filed on behalf of the plaintiffs-petitioners. It further observed that the plea was inappropriate because it could not be expected that a person, who had acquired title to that land about Civil Revision No. 4733 of 2007 -2- **** 50 years ago, did not know that he was a co-sharer therein. I have heard Mr.Amarjit Markan, learned counsel counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.K.Gupta, learned appearing on behalf of the respondents and have carefully gone through the file. It is apparent from a perusal of the plaint, a copy whereof is available on record, that the plaintiffs-petitioners applied for a permanent injunction and the restraint thereby of defendants- respondents from obstructing their user of Arh indicated as ABCD in the red colour in the site plan attached alongwith the plaint. It is further apparent from the plaint (which is available on record from running pages 19 to 26 of the paper book) that the precise averment made by the plaintiffs was that they “have acquired a right of easement by way of prescription and easement of necessity”. The plaintiffs-petitioners having raised a pure and simple plea of easement by way of prescription and easement of necessity cannot now validly be allowed to raise a plea of co-sharership. The inconsistency between the initially raised plea and the proposed plea is apparent enough in the circumstances of the case. The former plea would be raised in respect of the property owned by the party opposite and the raising of a plea of own co-sharership would be aimed at wriggling out of the predicament of the admission aforementioned. A party cannot be allowed to wriggle out of an admission made by it in the course of the pleadings at the trial, particularly when Civil Revision No. 4733 of 2007 -3- **** the case has reached the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments and the cause is pending since the year 2000. The long pendency of the matter is obviously not a matter which has weighed this Court in rejecting the petition. The long pendency has been noticed only after having found, infact, that the plea has to be declined on merits thereof. The petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. May 08, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 4733 of 2007 -4- ****