IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2848 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 3.5.2010 Smt. Dayal Kaur and others ....Petitioners Versus Sohan Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.11111-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.M.No.11112-CII of 2010 in/and C.R.No.2848 of 2010 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2010 by which their prayer for amendment of the pleadings has been declined. It is contended by the petitioners that there is a contradictory plea which has been taken up by the counsel who drafted the pleadings, which is erroneous. By way of amendment the petitioners want to take up a plea that proceedings for symbolic possession be undertaken, implying thereby that they are in possession of the suit property. But in para 7 of the plaint, which is annexed as Annexure P-1 to the instant petition, they have C.R.No.2848 of 2010 (O&M) -2- categorically pleaded that the respondent being influential person has forged the sale-deed and wrongly and illegally dispossessed them in the month of January 2006 and thereafter the respondent is continuing in unauthorised possession of the suit land. Therefore, it is the positive case set up by the petitioners that they have been dispossessed from the suit property and consequently the plea which is now sought to be introduced by way of amendment to the effect that symbolic possession be handed over to them is totally at variance with the pleading taken earlier. Such a plea can neither be termed to be a result of inadvertence or ignorance. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have been dispossessed by the respondent and the consequent plea which is now sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is likely to change the very complexion of the suit, which cannot be permitted. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. 3.5.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss