Civil Revision No.637 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 637 of 2009 Date of decision: 4.5.2010 Dharam Singh ...Petitioner Versus Gurmit Singh and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.S.Bedi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. In the initially filed written statement, the defendants- respondents did not, at all, plead that the impugned agreement, on the basis whereof a plea for specific performance had been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner before the Trial Court, was a fabricated or forged affair. It is only on 12.2.2008 that a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. came to be filed by defendants-respondents whereby the proposed plea to aver fabrication or forgery in the matter of impugned agreement was raised. It is common ground that the suit by the petitioner-plaintiff came to be filed on 3.7.2005, written statement filed on 4.10.2005and issues were framed on 13.11.2006. As already noticed, the amendment plea came to be filed on 12.2.2008. It is also common ground that three Pws have already been examined on behalf of the Civil Revision No.637 of 2009 -2- **** plaintiff-petitioner. The learned Trial Court allowed the amendment plea by observing that it shall only enable the trial Court to decide the case effectively. In that context, it also noticed that defendants- respondent “has disputed the averments of the written statement as outcome of fraud and case being at initial stage so as to permit the defendant no.1/applicant to contest the case as per averments he alleges to put forth.” The grievance on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned allowance was legally inappropriate inasmuch as the proposed amendment plea was filed after inordinate delay of about three years. In an endeavour at resistance, it is argued on behalf of the defendants-respondents that the factum of fraud and forgery came to the notice of defendants on or about August, 2005. A “FIR on those allegations had been lodged by the defendants-respondents against the plaintiff-petitioner on 23.8.2005. It is also pointed out that the matter had been referred to the FSL which gave a report against the petitioner-plaintiff on 28.11.2005. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the conceded presentation that the defendants-respondents had initially not taken up the plea that the impugned agreement was forged or fabricated. They went to the law on 23.8.2005 by lodging an FIR. The FSL report came about on 28.11.2005. It is neither here nor there to argue on behalf of the defendants-respondents that the filing of the amendment plea came to be delayed on account of a verbal Civil Revision No.637 of 2009 -3- **** agreement and that proposed plea was filed only when the plaintiff- petitioner retracted from that verbal agreement. In view of the fact that the initially filed pleadings just did not contain an averment about the forged/fabricated character of the impugned agreement and also in view of the fact that the proposed plea had been filed after inordinate delay and after the trial had commenced in the year 2006 itself, the impugned order has to be invalidated and it is so ordered accordingly. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition shall stand allowed. May 04, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge