Civil Revision No.4162 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4162 of 2008 Date of Decision:26.02.2009 Vinod Kumar & anr. ....petitioners versus Sohan Lal Jindal .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Vinod Khunger,Advocate for the petitioners Mr.O.P.Hoshiarpuri, Advocate for the respondent **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. The present petition has been filed by the defendants challenging the order dated 22.04.2008 passed by Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the application of the petitioners for amendment of the written statement at the appellate stage has been dismissed. As per the averments made in the petition, the plaintiff- respondent filed a suit for possession by way of redemption of payment of mortgage amount of two chaubaras/rooms on the first floor being a portion/part of property No. CS-1/77. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed written statement denying the allegations of the plaintiff-respondent and had taken the stand that neither the plaintiff-respondent is the owner nor is having any concern with the property and the suit property is owned by a Trust, which was not liable to be mortgaged and the same was not mortgaged at all. Rather, the plaintiff has misrepresented and had induced the petitioner to Civil Revision No.4162 of 2008 2 pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- as pagri which was paid by way of pay order and it was stipulated that the suit property shall be on rent with the petitioners @ Rs.20/- per month. It was also stated that the rent has been paid till 31.12.1996. It was, however, stated in the written statement that the signatures of the petitioners were obtained on blank papers on which the mortgage deed was forged. As per the averments, the trial court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 05.09.2007. During the pendency of the appeal before the District Judge, Ferozepur, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement pleading therein that the petitioners were given the possession of one constructed chaubara and one unconstructed chaubara. The unconstructed chaubara was completed by them by spending Rs.27,000/- from their own pocket. It was further pleaded in the application that the petitioners are the tenants and the nature of the suit and the pleadings of the parties are not likely to change with the proposed amendment. The said application was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned order dated 22.04.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the amendment sought by the petitioners is necessary for the just decision of the case. The proposed amendment will not change the nature of the suit and no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents as they can be very well compensated by way of costs and therefore the impugned order should be set aside and application filed by the petitioners for amendment in the written statement be allowed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that the suit in this case was filed in the year 1997 and the present application has been filed after a considerable delay. The amendment sought by the petitioners was very well in their knowledge Civil Revision No.4162 of 2008 3 and they have absolutely given no explanation for not making the amendment at the initial stage of the suit. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Undisputedly, the civil suit was filed in the Court on 05.12.1996. The petitioner filed written statement on 21.09.1998. A specific defence was taken that there was no mortgage and they were inducted as tenants by the respondent. Now, after a period of 10 years, it has occurred to the petitioners that as a matter of fact only possession of one chaubara was given to them whereas the second one was constructed by them out of their pocket. There is absolutely no explanation as to what prevented them to take this defence on 21.09.1998 when they filed their written statement. Not only this, the parties led evidence and thereafter litigated for 10 long years and even the suit was decided by the trial Court. Thus, it is apparent that the amendment sought by the petitioners is only an attempt to delay the proceedings for no valid reasons. I find no merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 26.02.2009 neenu