IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1127 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 2.3.2009 Dalbir ....Petitioner Versus Kanwar Pal and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated February 16, 2009, passed by the learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated July 2, 1998 executed in their favour by respondents No.3 and 4/defendants. The suit was filed on August 25, 2000 in which besides claiming the aforesaid relief even two sale deeds executed by respondent No.4 in favour of respondent No.5 and 6 on July 17, 2000 and July 24, 2000 were also challenged. At the fag end of the trial, application was filed by the petitioner/the vendee in a sale deed on July 17, 2000 and July 24, 2000 to amend the written statement to take the plea that the property in dispute was infact mortgaged by the vendor in favour of uncle of respondents No.1 and 2/plaintiffs in the year 1994. He further submitted that it is not disputed that the fact of mortgage was duly mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner still no plea with regard to the same was taken in the written statement originally filed. An application for amendment was filed when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Considering the same to be highly belated and the amendment which was sought to be made was well within the knowledge of petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement in the suit, way back in 2000, the learned Court below dismissed the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that factum of the mortgage of the property by the vendor in favour of uncle of respondents No.1 and 2 goes to the route of the case as this fact is not mentioned in the agreement to sell projected by them but is mentioned in the sale deed executed in their favour. However, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. Once -2- the factum of alleged mortgage was well within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of written statement originally, such a plea cannot be permitted to be taken by way of amendment in the written statement at the fag end of the trial as the object seems to be merely to delay disposal of the suit. Even otherwise in my opinion mentioning or non-mentioning of the mortgage of the property will not have any bearing on the agreement to sell executed by respondents No.3 and 4 in favour of respondents No.1 and 2/the plaintiffs, which has to be considered on the basis of the evidence led by the parties in the suit. The revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 2.3.2009 JUDGE Reema