C.R.No.1048 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.1048 of 2009. Decided on: September 16, 2009. Hajar Khan .. Petitioner VERSUS Tahir Khan and another .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.P.R.Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Bawa, Advocate, for the respondents. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff-petitioner had filed a suit for permanent injunction against Makuli widow of Suleman, to restrain her from selling he property which is the subject matter of the suit and co- owned by her. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.08.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant by Makuli, was null and void. The said case was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.11.2007. In an appeal filed by the . . . 1 C.R.No.1048 of 2009 plaintiff-petitioner, the petitioner sought the amendment of the pleadings to seek the relief of possession also. Vide impugned order dated 06.01.2009. the amendment has been disallowed by the lower Appellate Court, on the ground that as the relief of possession was available to him at the time of filing of the suit, he cannot be permitted to fill-in the lacunae after a number of years of filing of the original suit. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the plaintiff merely wants to incorporate the prayer for possession in case his appeal is allowed and decree for declaration is passed in his favour regarding the sale deed executed by Makuli in favour of defendant-respondent Tahir Khan. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the pleadings with the assistance of counsel, I am of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned order especially when the plaintiff-petitioner in his plaint has taken up a plea that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute. Permitting a party to take a contradictory stand that too in appeal is not permissible. Dismissed. Copy of the pleadings taken from the counsel for the petitioner is returned. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE September 16, 2009. rka . . . 2