IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.10.2010 C.R.No.6829 of 2010 (O&M) Sukhdev Singh ...Petitioner Versus Maghar Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : M/s Ashok Singla & Ravish Bansal, Advocates, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by the learned trial Court on 21.05.2010, whereby an application filed by the defendant to amend the written statement was declined. Learned trial Court has found that the petitioner has filed the application for amendment of the written statement after the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant and that earlier the stand of the defendant was that the pronote and receipt, the basis of suit, are forged and fabricated. But now by virtue of amendment, the plea sought to be raised is that the said pronote and receipt were actually executed in exchange of an earlier pronote and receipt dated 12.03.2001. Therefore, it was found that contradictory plea cannot be permitted to be raised by the defendant. I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the reasoning given by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has sought amendment in the written statement after the trial has commenced. The petitioner wishes to raise a plea, which is contradictory to the plea already C.R.No.6829 of 2010 (O&M) raised. Such plea is sought to be raised after the case was fixed for the evidence of the defendant. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 27.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2