IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.92 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.1.2009. Mangat Rai ...Petitioner Versus Om Parkash and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned lower Appellate Court dated December 11, 2007, whereby an application filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. The suit filed by respondent/plaintiffs for declaration and possession was decreed against which the petitioner/defendant was in appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court the petitioner sought amendment of the written statement. It was submitted that in the amendment which is sought in the written statement, the plea regarding right accruing to the petitioner/defendant under Section 51 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act') is sought to be taken as during the period, the property remain in possession of the petitioner, he had made certain improvements thereon by spending the amount. The submission is that he only wants to add his claim regarding right accruing under Section 51 of Act. Otherwise the evidence in support thereof has already been led before the trial Court and he would not lead any fresh evidence in support of the plea. C.R. No.92 of 2008 (O&M) -2- To this plea of the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents does not have any objection. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner is accepted. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement. The additions which are claimed to be made in the written statement in existing para-7 thereof, as extracted in the impugned order, are permitted to be made. However, it is subject to the condition that the petitioner will not be permitted to lead any evidence. The learned lower Appellate Court may frame additional issue, if so required on the new pleadings and opine thereon on the basis of the evidence already on record. The revision petition is disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) 14.1.2009 JUDGE Reema