C.R. NO. 2180 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. NO. 2180 OF 2010 DECIDED ON : 01.04.2010 Paramjit Singh ...Petitioner versus Sakatar Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) This is a revision petition against the order dated 24.01.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance in respect of agreement to sell. In reply to the application, the defendant now revisionist filed written statement taking the plea that there was oral agreement to pay Rs.60 lacs per acre in stead of Rs.35 lacs as mentioned in the agreement. Amendment now sought is to delete the fact that the plaintiff has agreed to pay a consideration of Rs.60 lacs per acre. Further prayer has been made that the defendant was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. The learned trial Court after adjudication dismissed the C.R. NO. 2180 OF 2010 -2- application vide the impugned order. The said order has been challenged in the present revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the law of amendment of written statement is very liberal. He has relied upon authority “Usha Balashaheb Swami and others vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others” 2007 (2) Civil Court Cases 785 (S.C.) I have carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records. No doubt the law of amendment of pleadings is very liberal, but before allowing amendment, the Court is to see whether the other party would be prejudiced or not ? In the present case, the petitioner has taken a stand that in fact the sale consideration was fixed @ Rs.60 lacs per acre, whereas in the agreement to sell the amount mentioned is Rs.35 lacs per acre. Now the petitioner wants to withdraw his admission made in the written statement. The other pleading sought to be taken is self-destructive as he now wants to plead that he was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement. No ground for interference in respect of impugned order is made out. Consequently, the revision petition stands dismissed, being meritless. APRIL 01, 2010 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE