Civil Revision No. 5025 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5025 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 Municipal Council and another ...Petitioners Versus Ram Nath and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners ***** S.D.ANAND, J. Respondent No.2 had already been proceeded exparte before the learned Trial Court. This fact stands noticed in the order dated 24.10.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court (H.S.Bhalla, J.). Learned counsel for the petitioners states that, even otherwise, no notice need be issued to respondent no.2 as he is dead and the relevant cause being a suit for permanent injunction, he does not find it necessary to bring the legal representatives of deceased on record. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a pure and simple suit for permanent injunction for the restraint of defendants-petitioners ( and two others) from interfering in former's proprietory and possessory title over the plot under reference which formed a part of the land comprised in Khasra No.1/27. The boundaries of the plot were detailed in the plaint. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants- petitioners, the averment regarding the proprietory and possessory title of Civil Revision No. 5025 of 2008 -2- **** the plaintiffs-respondents were denied. It was further alleged that the suit had been filed by the plaintiff-respondent in collusion with the private defendant Girdhari Lal who (Girdhari Lal) also filed an independent suit against the defendant-petitioner Municipal Council in which he had raised a claim that it is he who is in possession of the suit property for the last more than three decades. As against it, the averment proceeds, the plaintiff- respondent had claimed to be owner in possession of the property in dispute for the last about 16 years prior to the institution of the suit. The further averment is that the ad-interim injunction plea (filed by Girdhari Lal in other suit) had been declined by this Court. The further averment, in the context, is that Girdhari Lal aforementioned got the present suit filed through plaintiff-respondent “to continue his illegal possession over the disputed property.” At the trial, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the plaint, and to thereby raise a plea that the plaintiff-respondent and Girdhari Lal aforementioned had encroached upon the bank of Ganda Nala comprised in Khasra No.27 by placing Khokha thereupon and that land comprised in Khasra No.27 vests in the defendant-petitioner i.e. the Municipal Council. That plea was negatived by the learned Trial Court by observing that the evidence of the plaintiff-respondent stood concluded on 6.5.2006 and that the defendants-respondents had already availed four effective opportunities to adduce their evidence but had not been able to adducing evidence and has opted to file the present application to delay the proceedings at the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the impugned amendment is only an elaboration of a plea already taken up in the written statement. It is argued that the proposed amendment would only enable Civil Revision No. 5025 of 2008 -3- **** the defendants-petitioners to indicate the exact description of the property in suit. In the light of the averment, I called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to indicate to this court where exactly a plea with regard to encroachment had been taken up by the written statement. The poser drew a blank from the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is, thus, apparent that the present plea does not even purport to be a endeavour at elaborating an already taken up plea. Infact, there is no plea in the written statement that land in dispute had been encroached upon by the plaintiff- respondent and Girdhari Lal aforementioned. The allowance of that plea, at this stage when the evidence on behalf plaintiff-respondent already stand concluded and defendants-petitioners have not been able to adduce any evidence whatsoever inspite of the fact that four effective opportunities have already been granted to them for producing evidence, shall be an abuse of process of law. In the light thereof, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge