C.R.No.2273 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2273 of 2008 Date of Decision:5.5.2008. Sukhdev Singh ....................... Petitioner v. Harnek Singh and another ........................Respondents. CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:-Mrs.Jarnail Kaur Dhaliwal,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J(Oral). Present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner- defendant challenging the order dated 22.2.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, vide which his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking to amend the written statement, has been dismissed. A perusal of the paper book reveals that a suit for separate possession filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed by the learned trial Court on 11.6.2005. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, petitioner-defendant filed Civil Appeal No. 55 dated 26.7.2007 and the same is pending before the appellate Court. During the pendency of the said appeal, petitioner-defendant moved an application to amend the written statement and incorporate preliminary objection no.5, which reads as under:- C.R.No.2273 of 2008 2 “That Pritam Singh son of Hardit Singh, natural father of defendant no.1/appellant/petitioner executed another Will dated 2.12.1971 duly registered with the Sub Registrar, Ludhiana. A copy of the said Will is already on record of the ld. Trial Court and is Ex.W8/D. The original document is in possession of Harnek Singh and Baldev defendants/respondents. The said document was also scribed by Babu Ram Sharma Deed Writer who has scribed the other documents. A copy of the entry of Deed Writer register is Ex.D1/E. The said Will is duly executed by Pritam Singh, which bears his thumb impression and is also attested by the witnesses. In view of the said clear admission of Pritam Singh, there can be no doubt that the defendant no.1/appellant/ petitioner was duly adopted by Kartar Singh. The defendant no.1/appellant/petitioner was adopted by Kartar Singh when he was about 5 years of age, but no writing was made at that time and the factum of adoption was confirmed by Kartar Singh by executing a registered adoption deed dated 15.4.1971.” Besides the above, correction of a slight mistake in the written statement, to the effect that the date of Will mentioned as 15.4.1971 may be substituted with the date as 9.3.1971, was also sought. Respondents-plaintiffs contested the said application on the ground that the said Will was in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant and was exhibited on record as Ex.DW8/D and on the basis of the same rights of the parties have been decided while decreeing the suit on 11.6.2005. The learned appellate court after considering the rival submissions of the parties has come to a definite conclusion that the Will in question was already on record as one of the exhibits and on the basis of the same rights C.R.No.2273 of 2008 3 of the parties have already been determined after giving a specific finding by the trial Court and therefore, there was absolutely no reason to amend the written statement at that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has not been able to point out any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. In my opinion, the petitioner-defendant, after passing of the decree by the trial court, is trying to fill up the lacuna which is not permissible under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. No case for interference is made out. Dismissed. 5.5.2008. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge