C.R. No. 5473 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5473 of 2007 Date of Decision: August 27, 2009 Raghbir Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Veer Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, a petition for amendment of the written statement filed by defendant- respondents has been allowed to enable the respondents to plead that the defendants are owners in possession of the suit land to the extent of their share vide civil Court decree dated April 21, 1982 passed in Civil suit whereas the defendants had earlier claimed that they were owners in possession of the suit property by virtue of ‘mutation of C.R. No. 5473 of 2007 [2] inheritance’. The amendment allowed will not, in any manner, change the nature of the case and would merely enable the defendants to clarify as to how they are owners in possession of the suit land. The said fact appears to be necessary for the just decision of the controversy. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the decree which is sought to be pleaded by way of amendment was already in the notice of the defendants but in view of the said decree having earlier not been incorporated in the pleadings, the defendants cannot be permitted to amend the pleadings. Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2007 (1) CCC 500 (SC), to contend that in view of the proviso added in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment should not be allowed after trial has commenced. There is no dispute regarding the said proposition but at the same time, the language of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be ignored which says that if the amendment is necessary to determine the real questions in controversy between the parties, the same shall be permitted. The defendant has already taken up the plea in the original written statement that he does not want to change this plea that “he is owner in possession” but the basis of “ownership” and possession was sought to be altered which would not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. C.R. No. 5473 of 2007 [3] August 27, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE