Civil Revision No.175 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.175 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 13-01-2010 Jai Krishan .... Petitioner VERSUS Yashpal and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Ashok Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 11.12.2009 passed by the learned court below whereby application for amendment of plaint filed by the petitioner / plaintiff was dismissed. Briefly the facts that the petitioner / plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.8.2002. The suit was filed on 04.12.2002. At the fag end of the trial, application was filed for seeking amendment of the plaint to raise a plea that regarding the suit land sale deed was executed by the respondent / defendant / vendor in favour of the Satdev on 3.12.2002. The application for amendment was filed on 2.12.2009 to challenge the sale deed. It was dismissed by the learned court below on the ground that trial in the suit was already nearing conclusion as the evidence by both the parties had been led and further the vendee / petitioner / plaintiff had also impleaded the subsequent buyer of the property as defendant no.3 in the suit by filing application on 22.05.2004. Meaning thereby that the execution of sale deed regarding the property in dispute on 3.12.2002, one day prior to the filing of the suit, was within the knowledge of the petitioner / plaintiff but still no steps were taken to challenge the same and challenge at this stage to the sale deed would be time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is due to inadvertence that the challenge to the sale deed executed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3 could not be made at the time when respondent no.3 was impleaded as defendant no.3 in the suit though he was impleaded as one of the defendant because of the fault of the counsel. Civil Revision No.175 of 2010 -2- After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. The admitted facts on record are that in the suit filed by the petitioner on 04.12.2002 the entire evidence has been led by both the parties. The prayer in the suit is for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 26.08.2002. By way of amendment challenge is sought to be made to a sale deed executed by respondent nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent no.3 regarding the suit property on 3.12.2002, one day prior to the filing of the suit. The knowledge about the execution of the sale deed to the petitioner is evident from the fact that subsequent buyer namely respondent no.3 was impleaded as defendant no.3 in the suit by filing application on 22.05.2004 but still the application seeking amendment to challenge the sale deed executed one day prior to the filing of the suit was filed on 2.12.2009. A belated challenge to the sale deed dated 3.12.2002 at this stage cannot be permitted by way of amendment in the plaint. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 13.01.2010 JUDGE manju