C.R. No. 4638 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4638 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.07.2010 Jag Pal Singh and others .... Petitioners Versus Rajinder Singh @ Sher Singh ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Jitender S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioners 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been invoked by the defendant-petitioners impugning the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri whereby the amendment application moved by the defendant-petitioners was rejected. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff (respondent herein) has field suit for possession over 4 marlas of land of Khasra No. 25/1 of Rectangle No. 58. However, relief of prohibitory injunction was also sought. 3. Defendant contested the suit, however, defendant has admitted in the written statement that plaintiff is co-owner of the Khasra No. 58/25/1. Evidence was commenced and after the evidence, defendant has moved present application under Order 6 C.R. No. 4638 of 2010 2 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to the effect that trees standing on the spot are part of Khasra No. 58/25/2 and are not standing over Khasra No. 58/25/1. Learned trial Court has rejected the application vide impugned order therein holding that at one stage it is admitted that plaintiff is owner of the property in dispute i.e. 58/25/1, hence, defendant can not be permitted to withdraw the admission. It is further observed by learned trial Court that amendment application has been moved at the belated stage. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that by mistake of the counsel it has been stated that trees on spot are standing on Khasra No. 53/25/1 while infact trees are standing on Khasra No. 53/25/2. He further argued that for the fault of the counsel litigant need not be suffered. 5. It is admitted by the petitioners that property in dispute is part of Khasra No. 58/25/1 and plaintiff is the owner of Khasra No. 58/25/1, now defendant can not be permitted to say that property in dispute is not part of Khasra No. 58/25/1 and is part of Khasra No. 58/25/2. In case amendment is permitted, it would amount to withdrawal of the admission. Moreover, defendant has not pleaded and proved that despite of due diligence the facts sought to be introduced by way of amendment was not within the knowledge of defendant. 6. The petition is devoid of merit, hence, is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 26.07.2010 JUDGE reena