IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 174 of 2007 Date of decision: 24.4.2008 Om Parkash ..Petitioner Versus Ved Parkash and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Rahul Mahajan, Advocate For the Respondents: S/Sh Onkar Jairath and Vijay Verma, Advocates, Deepak Gupta, J(Oral) This petition is directed against the order passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 2, Amb, dated 11th June, 2007 rejecting the application filed by the defendants for amendment of the written statement. Facts in brief are that the plaintiff filed a suit for possession of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1027 and 1028 comprised in Khewat No. 47, Khatauni Nos. 229 and 230. The defendants contested the suit. They 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in which they prayed that they, during the pendency of the suit, had purchased 63/75998 share in Khewat No. 47, Khatauni Nos. 201 to 249 including the suit land from one of the co-owners, Fateh Chand and have thus become co-owners in the suit property. This application was rejected by the learned trial court mainly on the ground that the application was filed when the case was fixed for defendants’ evidence and had been filed only with the purpose for delaying the suit. It was also observed that subsequent purchase would not in any manner change the status of the defendants to co-owners. As far as the second observation of the learned trial court is concerned, I am not in agreement with the same. Even a subsequent purchase by the defendants from one of the co-owners would make them co-owners. However, in the present case from the perusal of the record I find that except for making a bald averment that the defendants have become co-owners alongwith the applicants, the material placed on record does not show that they have become co-owners. I have perused the sale deed on the basis of which the defendants claim that they have become co-owners. This 3 sale deed makes no reference to Khasra Nos. 1027 and 1028 which are subject matters of the suit. There is no material placed on record by the defendants to show that these two khasra numbers form part of the land which was sold to them by Fateh Singh under the alleged sale deed. Therefore, the application for amendment is totally misconceived and was rightly rejected by the trial court. The petition is without any merit and is dismissed. No costs. April 24, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ),J.