CR No. 3182 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3182 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 20-12-2010 Ram Bahadur ....Petitioner VERSUS Sushil Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 5 MAHESH GROVER, J Petitioner is aggreived by the order dated 12.4.2010 by which his prayer for amendment of the written statement has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property and that the suit has been initiated by his son questioning the sale deed executed by the father. He has stated that during the course of testimony it transpired that there were two release deeds executed within the family and upon the basis of such deeds the property was exchanged. He thus contends that these release deeds were not to his knowledge and he acquired the knowledge of the same when the testimony of the respondents was recorded in the year 2009 prompting him to move such an application immediately. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer of the petitioner to contend that in the application CR No. 3182 of 2010 (O&M) 2 seeking amendment of the pleadings, the petitioner has failed to plead that there was due diligence on his part and despite such diligence he could not plead such facts. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that merely because it was not pleaded in the application for amendment that the petitioner despite exercise of due diligence was prevented from pleading such a fact would not be a ground to be considered as an impediment in the consideration of an application for amendment of the pleadings. The Court is to see whether a substantial right has been affected and whether such an amendment is in the course of natural flow of the averments made in the plaint or the written statement and that it does not vary the pleadings so as to set up a new case and further it should not be mala fide. Considering the material before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that neither of the aforesid ingredients stand established against the petitioner. In this view of the matter when the amendment so sought is in conformity with the pleadings in the written statement and which lapse can easily be attributed to the lack of knowledge on the part of the petitioner and no malice is shown on his part and prima facie it appears that he is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property, I am of the considered opinion that the revision petition deserves to be accepted. Ordered accordingly and the impugned order is hereby set aside. As a consequence thereof the petitioner shall be permitted to amend his written statement appropriately, however, subject to Rs.5,000/- as costs. December 20 , 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge