Civil Revision No. 5340 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5340 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 1.12.2010. Jaspal Singh ....Petitioner Versus Bahadar Singh ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover Present:- Mr. Lalit Pathak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate for the respondent. MAHESH GROVER, J (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21.8.2009 vide which his application for amendment of the written statement has been declined. In a suit for specific performance where respondent wanted the enforcement of agreement to sell in his favour, the petitioner took a plea that such an agreement was forged and fabricated. The respondent has led his evidence and the petitioner too has furnished his affidavit by way of an affirmative evidence in which he has described the property as being ancestral. The prayer having been declined the petitioner is in revision petition before this Court wherein at the time of issuance of notice of motion it was projected before this Court that the petitioner would not lead any evidence apart from the one which has already been led by him in support of his plea that the property is coparcenary. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that such a plea cannot be taken by any of the parties at such stage when the evidence has progressed. He has further contended that such a plea is not available to the petitioner and in a suit for specific performances where the agreement is proved, the plaintiff in such case is entitled to the property which is available with the executor of the agreement and Civil Revision No. 5340 of 2009 (O&M) -2- the defect of title is not to be constructed to be defence. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that in view of the categoric stand taken by the petitioner that no further evidence shall be led by him on such issue and also in view of the fact that the right of the respondent to lead evidence in rebuttal in the eventuality of such an issue being struck has been protected by the statement of counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in the event of amendment being allowed. Besides equitable justice can be ensured by compensating the other side with costs. Having regard to the aforesaid, the amount of Rs. 15,000/- which was directed to be deposited at the time of motion hearing as litigation expenses are directed to be disbursed to the respondent. The petitioner shall also pay costs of Rs. 5000/- in addition to aforesaid amount. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHESH GROVER) 1.12.2010 JUDGE Reema