IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1972 of 2010 Date of decision : 25.3.2010 Beena Devi and others ....Petitioners Versus Leela Rani and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Viney Puri, Advocate for the petitioners. S. D. ANAND, J. The defendants-petitioners herein have called into question of validity of order dated 27.2.2010 vide which a plea raised by the defendants-petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. came to be negatived by the learned Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller observed that the plea raised, apart from being belated, was aimed at enabling the petitioners to wriggle out of an admission made in the course of the written statement filed at the trial. In that context, defendants-petitioners had initially claimed to be owners of the property in suit; while the proposed amendment sought to introduce therein an averment that the petitioners obtained this property by means of testamentary disposition dated 18.12.1970. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment came to be negatived on the grounds which are absolutely legal and acceptable at law. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly in limine. March 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE