Civil Revision No. 3228 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3228 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17.5.2010 Subeg Singh and others .. Petitioners v. Dalip Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Bikramjit Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 12.3.2010, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the respondent-defendant for amendment of the written statement, was accepted. The petitioners, in the present case, filed a suit for permanent injunction seeking to protect their possession on the land in question. Initially, the stand of the respondent-defendant in the written statement filed was that he is in adverse possession thereof. However, the same was sought to be amended to take a plea that in some partition proceedings, the aforesaid land had come to his share. The learned court below having accepted the prayer for amendment of the written statement, the petitioners-plaintiffs, being aggrieved, are before this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defendant by way of amendment in the written statement cannot be permitted to take a plea, which is mutually destructive. The stand of the defendant in the written statement initially filed was that he was in adverse possession of the land in question, which necessarily means that he admitted the ownership of the petitioners-plaintiffs on the land, whereas in the amended written statement, the plea sought to be raised is that he is in possession of the land after it came to his share in partition proceedings. The kind of amendment, sought to be made, cannot be raised as the same would prejudice the case of the petitioners. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The claim made by the petitioners- Civil Revision No. 3228 of 2010 [2] plaintiffs in the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the respondent- defendant from interfering into their possession of the land. For that, all what the petitioners are required to prove is their possession on the land. The plea, which is sought to be raised by the respondent-defendant either in the written statement filed earlier or in the amended is that he is in possession of the property. The petitioners-plaintiffs are not to get any relief on the basis of lacunae in the defence of the respondent-defendant, rather, they have to stand on their own legs. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 17.5.2010 mk