IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4278 of 2010 Date of Decision : 20.7.2010 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner Versus Parkash Chand ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Dhirinder Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Salar, Advocate for the caveator/respondent. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2010 vide which the amendment to the written statement has been declined. He wanted to incorporate a fact that the sale deed which has been relied upon by both the petitioner and the respondent in the proceedings before the trial Court was pertaining to a property which was purchased by the firm and not by an individual. The facts of the case are to be noticed in brief. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner claiming that he along with others are co-owners, in possession of the suit property, to which a counter claim was filed by the petitioner, who pleaded that there was a partnership firm existing earlier in which the petitioner and respondent were partners of their respective C.R.No.4278 of 2010 -2- shares which have been detailed in the counter claim itself and the respondent has since abandoned the firm. By virtue of the present amendment he wanted to incorporate a plea that the property was purchased in the name of the firm and not in the name of an individual. The prayer has been declined by the trial court on the ground that the petitioner concluded his evidence three years before filing the application in question after availing 10 opportunities and that the sale was already to his knowledge. The respondent is on caveat. He has opposed the petition by saying that once the trial has commenced, no amendment of the pleadings can be allowed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order and other material on record, this Court is of the opinion that no prejudice is likely to be caused in the event of the amendment being carried out for the simple reason that the petitioner has already filed a counter claim pleading the essentials of the partnership firm and merely because a clarification is added that the property was purchased in the name of the partnership firm by virtue of a sale deed, on which both the parties rely, is not likely to affect the case further as the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no further evidence is required regarding this aspect of the matter. Accordingly, the petition is accepted, the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs and the amendment so sought by the petitioner is permitted to be incorporated C.R.No.4278 of 2010 -3- in the written statement. 20.7.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss