Civil Revision No.1285 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1285 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.11.2010 Jatinder Pal .... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Daljit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gauravjit Singh, Advocate for Mr. R. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent. **** L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-Jatinder Pal has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India to challenge order dated 09.01.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, thereby allowing application Annexure P-3 for amendment of written statement moved by defendant-respondent Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana. By moving application Annexure A-3, defendant sought to plead by amendment of written statement that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff committed theft in the office of defendant and has stolen the record of the present case with intent to prevent the defendant from leading evidence and to obtain decree. It was also sought to be pleaded that FIR had been ordered to be lodged in the matter and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit amount because entire amount for the work done has already paid to the plaintiff. The Civil Revision No.1285 of 2010 -2- said amendment has been allowed by the Trial Court by impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that during investigation of the FIR lodged by respondent regarding alleged theft, the record in question was found in the record room of the respondent and cancellation report in the said FIR has been prepared by the Police and, therefore, proposed amendment in written statement cannot be allowed. Learned counsel for respondent is unable to counter the aforesaid contention. It is conceded that the alleged stolen record has since been recovered. In view of the aforesaid, amendment sought for by the defendant-respondent in written statement has been rendered infructuous. Consequently the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P-5 passed by the Trial Court is set aside and application Annexure P-3 moved by the defendant for amendment of written statement stands dismissed. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 29.11.2010 'raj'