Civil Revision No. 1524 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1524 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.05.2009. Beant Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Vandana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Suresh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. B.R.Gupta, Advocate for the respondents ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to indicate, in the course of the written statement, that they are in possession of the premises in dispute with effect from 6.6.1990. Initially, the only averment made by them in the written statement was that they are in possession since the year 1990. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court which observed that the allowance of the plea was not warranted after the evidence of both the parties was over and the matter is listed for arguments. The learned Trial Court was also influenced by the fact that the defendants-petitioners had not, at all, explained Civil Revision No. 1524 of 2009 -2- **** where from the precise date in the context came to their notice. It is common ground otherwise that in the suit which was instituted on 5.6.2003, the written statement came to be filed on 9.3.2004 and issues, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, were framed on 6.4.2004. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent came to be closed on 5.6.2006. The defendants-petitioners closed their evidence after availing of as many as nine opportunities for the purpose aforementioned. In the light of the above mentioned facts, it is apparent that the plea had been validly declined by the learned Trial Court. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. May 27, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge