CR No. 7816 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 7816 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 1.12.2010 Gurjit Singh ......petitioner vs. Sh. Balkar Singh ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 16.7.2010 whereby the defendant was permitted to amend the written statement and the counter claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that by amendment the defendant has sought to raise the counter claim which has become barred by limitation and for without affixing appropriate Court fee. It is also argued that the amendment will change the entire nature of the suit. Therefore, the amendment should not have been allowed. It is admitted that the parties have yet to lead evidence. It has further been found by the learned trial Court that the suit was filed in the year 2000 i.e., prior to the amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure 2002, which came into force w.e.f. 1.7.2002, therefore, amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 are not applicable. Whether by virtue of the amendment, the defendant has raised the counter claim which is barred by limitation or that the appropriate Court fee has not been affixed on the counter claim. The CR No. 7816 of 2010 -2- question which is required to be examined after the amendment is allowed. It is open to the petitioner to raise objections in the reply to the counter claim raising the plea of limitation or that of inadequate Court fee has been affixed but at the stage of considering whether the amendment should have been allowed such are not the relevant considerations. The arguments that the entire nature of the suit stands altered is again not tenable. The amendment arises out of an agreement executed between the parties. The plaintiff has sought to avoid the agreement on the basis of his minority at the time of execution of the said agreement. The issue regarding the validity of the agreement is not deviated in any manner by allowing the amendment. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, the present revision is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 1.12.2010 preeti