CR No. 2797 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 2797 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 26.10.2010 Amrit Lal ....Petitioner Versus Smt. Munni Devi and others ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. Plaintiff - petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order dated 22.2.2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palwal, whereby amendment application moved by the tenant - respondent was allowed. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff - petitioner filed suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement to sell dated 18.12.2004. Defendants - respondents herein have filed written CR No. 2797 of 2010 2 statement before the trial Court stating therein that it is wrong to say that the plaintiff was ready and willing and is still ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It has further been stated in the written statement that the defendants are ready and always are ready to perform their part of the contract dated 18.12.2004. It has further been averred in the written statement that defendants have entered into an agreement to sell 42 Kanals and 04 Marlas of land and have not entered into contract to sell the land measuring 82 Kanals and 10 Marlas. Defendants have moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff has made serious alteration and additions in the agreement to sell dated 18.12.2004 and has filled up the blanks. Further amendment sought is that defendants on 25.5.2005 i.e. the date fixed for execution came present before the office of Sub-Registrar, Palwal to execute the sale deed in terms of the agreement to sell dated 18.12.2004, however, plaintiff did not turn up. It is further averred that it is the plaintiff, who has failed to perform his part of the contract and defendants were ready and willing to execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement to sell. The trial Court vide impugned order allowed the amendment application. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, appearing for the plaintiff - petitioner argued that defendants cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission made in the agreement to sell. It has further been contended by him that after the commencement of the trial, defendants should not have been allowed to CR No. 2797 of 2010 3 carry out amendment in the written statement. It is true that ordinarily amendment should not be allowed after the commencement of the trial until and unless the party seeking amendment is able to prove as to why the amendment sought was not pleaded despite of due diligence. It is also true that normally admission made by the parties should not be permitted to be withdrawn. Having perused the written statement and the amendment application, I am of the view that defendants are neither withdrawing the admission nor explaining the admission. The only thing the defendants are incorporating, is that the plaintiff has failed to perform the part of the contract within the stipulated time and defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. From the very inception, defendants are pleading that they were ready and willing. Now, incorporation of sentence that plaintiff has failed to perform his part of the contract does not make any difference. Explaining the pleadings for fair adjudication of the case does not amount to taking new pleading. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be invoked to correct every error unless and until this Court finds that error committed by the trial Court is a grave error and amounts to manifest error of law. In the opinion of this Court, amendment was rightly allowed by the trial Court, which requires no interference. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 26.10.2010 sk.