IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2417/2011 Date of decision: 28.04.2011. Hardyal Sidhu ....................Petitioner v. Smt.Rekha Rani .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.Sandeep Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.3.2011 (P2) whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/defendant only wishes to make necessary amendment in the pleadings to the extent that there are material alterations and additions in the alleged agreement to sell dated 4.11.1997 which are apparent on its face. He further submits that defendant/petitioner does not intent to lead any further evidence qua such an averment. It is apparent from the record that plaintiff/respondent had filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4.11.1997 in respect of suit property measuring 10 marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint. When the entire evidence had been led by both sides and case was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments, the application (P1) seeking amendment of the written statement was preferred. The contention that the plea of material alterations and additions in the agreement to sell dated 4.11.1997 deserves to be allowed cannot be sustained for the reasons that the defendant/petitioner had taken a categoric stand denying the said agreement to sell dated 4.1.1997. At this belated stage the petitioner is taking a u-turn by saying that the agreement to sell contains material alterations and additions, which in my opinion, the learned trial court has rightly declined in view of his earlier contrary stand denying the agreement to sell in toto. The prayer that no further evidence is required to be led is also devoid of any merit since the amendment then becomes meaningless in the absence of any issue of agreement to sell dated 4.11.1997 being a forged or fabricated document or even otherwise, it is not denied that no suggestion in the cross examination of the witnesses of the plaintiff has been made with regard to such additions and alterations having been made in the agreement to sell dated 4.11.1997. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 28.04.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge