IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2267 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 6.4.2010 Jagraj Singh ....Petitioner Versus Birish Bhan ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Kuldeep V.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.8610-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. C.R.No.2267 of 2010 There is no ground to interfere with the impugned order which has been justifiably passed. The dispute in the main suit pertains to the property regarding which ownership is claimed by the parties. The petitioner by virtue of the present amendment wants to prove that the decree in favour of the vendor of the respondent is fraudulent so as to deprive him of his title. It has also been pleaded that the said fact came to his knowledge just a week ago. In the written statement he had not taken up the plea of fraud and had merely said that the petitioner has purchased the land comprised in Khasra No.87//10/1/1/2/2 whereas the suit property is comprised in C.R.No.2267 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Khasra No.87//10/1/2/1. He thereby wanted to show that his property is distinct from that of the respondent but now he has questioned the very genesis of the sale transaction in favour of the respondent by saying that the decree conferring ownership on the vendor of the respondent is a result of fraud. No such plea was raised by him in the first instance. Earlier also he had made an attempt by filing an application for amendment of written statement which was also declined and which matter went upto the Supreme Court wherein the order declining the amendment of the written statement was upheld. Apparently, the plea of the petitioner to produce additional evidence is misconceived in the absence of any pleading to that effect. The impugned order thus cannot be faulted with. Dismissed. 6.4.2010 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss