IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 886 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.2.2009 Jagdev ....Petitioner Versus Satish and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. B.K. Bagri, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated January 7, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonipat, whereby the application filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint was accepted. Briefly the facts are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant claiming themselves to be owners in possession of the property in dispute. During the pendency of the suit, an application for amendment was filed with permission to take the plea of waiver and estoppel in addition to other pleas raised in the plaint. The amendment having been allowed, the petitioner/defendant is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Court below has committed illegality in allowing the application for amendment after the trial has already commenced as the issues in the present case were framed way back on August 21, 2006. However, I do not find any merit in the submission made. No doubt issues were framed but no evidence has been led till date. Even otherwise the amendment which has been sought and allowed by learned Court below is only with regard to taking additional legal pleas of waiver and estoppel which does not in any manner change the nature of suit or relief claimed. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and the revision petition is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 18.2.2009 JUDGE Reema