Civil Revision No. 2926 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2926 of 2010 Date of decision : August 12, 2010 Smt. Bhani ....Petitioner versus Ram Karan and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GS Duhan, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. VD Sharma, Advocate, for respondent no. 1 L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant no. 1 Bhani has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 21.4.2010, Annexure P/8, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal, thereby dismissing two applications dated 21.4.2010, Annexures P/6 and P/7, moved by defendant no. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 for amendment of written statement and for permission to deposit the mortgage money in the trial court. Respondent no. 1-plaintiff has filed suit for foreclosure of right of redemption of mortgage of the suit land and for permanent injunction. Defendants pleaded that they had already paid mortgage money without receipt. By way of amendment, defendants want to plead the subsequent Civil Revision No. 2926 of 2010 -2- event that during the pendency of the suit, they have deposited mortgage money before the Collector. It is also alleged that it transpired in the plaintiff's evidence that plaintiff was minor on 30.11.1959, the date of mortgage agreement. Consequently, it is also sought to be pleaded by amendment that the mortgage agreement is null and void. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that subsequent facts are sought to be pleaded by amendment and therefore amendment should be allowed. Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no. 1 is unable to controvert the aforesaid contention. However, the amendment application is bit late inasmuch as the factum of plaintiff being minor on the date of mortgage agreement came in his evidence on 1.10.2009 but the amendment application was moved on 21.4.2010. For this delay, the defendants have to be subjected to costs. As regards the deposit of the mortgage money in the trial court, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent no. 1 contended that the amount should have been deposited on the first date of hearing when defendants put in appearance before the trial court. However, defendants may be permitted to deposit the mortgage money at their own risk and responsibility and the consequences of the said deposit shall be determined by the trial court while deciding the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 21.4.2010, Annexure P/8 passed by trial court is set aside and application for amendment of written statement Civil Revision No. 2926 of 2010 -3- Annexure P/6 is allowed subject to payment of Rs 1000/- as costs precedent. Application Annexure P/7 for permission to deposit mortgage amount in the trial court is allowed subject to the observation that the consequences of the deposit to be made now and consequences of not depositing the amount immediately on appearance of the defendants in the trial court, shall be determined by the trial court in accordance with law, while deciding the suit finally. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 12, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'