IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.290 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 30, 2011 Pania Ram ..Petitioner Versus Kirpa Ram and others .. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. C.S. Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. __________________________________________ Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining the present petitioner, impleaded as defendant No.4, and proforma respondents, from interfering in their possession over land, measuring 4.19 bighas, bearing Khasra Nos. 205 and 229, situated in a village of Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. Present petitioner, who is defendant No.4 in the suit, has been contesting that suit. He has denied that respondents- plaintiffs are the owners in possession. He has set-up title in himself and has claimed that he is in possession. Petitioner, after having failed to adduce evidence on three Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? É2É opportunities, afforded for the purpose, filed an application, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking leave of the Court to amend written statement so as to take the plea that he and proforma respondents had never given the suit land to the respondents-plaintiffs, in exchange. His application for amendment has been rejected, vide order dated 23.6.2011. He is aggrieved by this order and has, therefore, filed the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents-plaintiffs have not set up the plea of exchange. Now, when there is no plea of exchange on behalf of the respondents-plaintiffs, question of the petitioner, pleading in his written statement, that no exchange had taken place, does not arise. In any case, if some evidence has been led by the respondents-plaintiffs, in the form of revenue papers or some writing of exchange, indicating that land was given in exchange to the respondents-plaintiffs by the petitioner and proforma respondents, then the petitioner-defendant No.4 can lead evidence to show that no such exchange had taken place, even without setting up such a plea in the written statement. This is especially so, when respondents-plaintiffs have not specifically pleaded and claimed, in the plaint, that the land, in question, was given to them, in exchange, by the petitioner and proforma-respondents. É3É 4. In view of the above stated position, petition is dismissed. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 2.11.2011. September 30, 2011 (ss) (Surjit Singh), J.