IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 179 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: February 16, 2011 Surjit Singh @ Jeet Singh .. Petitioner Vs. Pritam and another .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. A.N. Jindal, J This petition assails the order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the Additional District Judge, Barnala declining the application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner (herein referred as, 'the petitioner') for amendment of the plaint during the pendency of the appeal. The facts in the background of the case are that a civil suit was decided by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Barnala on 14.3.2005 against which the appeal is pending. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-appellant moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement for taking plea that the agreement dated 17.5.2000 was the result of fraud and on the same day one another agreement was also executed. Brij Lal, Kulwant Rai, Darshan Kumar, Prem Kumar, Sohan Lal, Baso Devi, Droptati Devi, Gurcharan Singh, Kashmia Singh,Gagandeep, PritamS ingh, Tipar Chand, Dwan Chand are the members of the same group and they create documents for each other and become witness for each other. Both the documents were prepared through Gagandeep Singh who is also member of the said party. The petitioner wants to take this plea in order to prove the fraud on the part of the respondents. Arguments heard. Record perused. The copy of the judgment dated 14.3.2005 indicates that this plea has been taken by the petitioner earlier at the time of filing written statement. The judgment indicates that the defendant in preliminary Civil Revision No. 179 of 2011 -2- *** objection No. 1 of his written statement has submitted that the alleged agreement dated 17.5.2000 was the result of fraud in connivance with the witnesses. The petitioner has also named the aforesaid persons being party to the fraud. Thus, the present application appears to have been filed just to prolong the adjudication of the appeal. No grounds to interfere. Dismissed. February 16, 2011 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge