Civil Revision No.7004 of 2010(O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.7004 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:27.10.2010 Rahul Setia ....petitioner Versus Arun Parkash & Ors. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Sandeep Jasuja,Advocate for the petitioner **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the impugned order vide which his application for amendment in the plaint, has been declined. As per the averments, petitioner filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement dated 25.10.1999 executed by Om Parkash. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid agreement was executed by said Om Parkash in representative capacity being General Power of Attorney of his wife namely Parkash Wanti and son Arun Parkash. The aforesaid agreement and the General Power of Attorneys dated 28.10.1971 and 12.08.1974 were already on record. It is further case of the petitioner that since in the plaint, it was mentioned that Om Parkash had executed the agreement, whereas he had executed the same being General Power of Attorney of Parkash Wanti and his son Arun Parkash, the said explanatory clarification in the plaint was required to be made and therefore amendment was sought by the petitioner. Civil Revision No.7004 of 2010(O & M) 2 The aforesaid application of the petitioner was contested by the respondent submitting that the amendment application had been filed after framing of the issues and conclusion of evidence by both the parties. It was further submitted by the respondent that the pleadings in the suit and application for amendment, were contradictory to the stand of the plaintiff. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 30.09.2010 dismissed the aforesaid application of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, the written statement was filed by the respondent on 08.01.2002 and issues were framed on 08.12.2002. Moreover, in the plaint it was submitted by the petitioner that the agreement in question was executed by Om Parkash, whereas now stand taken in the application for amendment is that agreement was executed by Om Parkash as General Power of Attorney of his son and wife, thus, the stand taken in the pleadings for amendment is contradictory. Moreover, petitioner while appearing as PW6, admitted in his cross-examination (which was conducted on 19.03.2009) that as per his pleadings in the plaint, the agreement was executed by defendant No.1 and Parkash Wanti, themselves, in his favour. Thus, apparently, there is an effort to fill in the lacuna. It is also not in dispute that the application has been filed at a belated stage. Even the evidence of the both the parties is complete. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.10.2010 neenu