CR No. 8085 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8085 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2010 Ravinder Pal and ors ......petitioners vs. Barinder Pal and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioners HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Defendants are in revision aggrieved against the order passed by learned trial Court on 14.9.2010 whereby an application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for separate possession by way of partition. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application for amendment of the written statement so as to incorporate the true and correct facts regarding “family settlement”. Learned trial Court declined such application, inter alia, for the reasons that the trial has commenced and it is not explained as to why such facts were not incorporated in the written statement. It is also mentioned with mere assertion that the facts were told to the earlier Counsel who has gone abroad is not sufficient to seek amendment. Learned trial Court has also found that by virtue of amendment, defendants seek to delete the words family settlement and delivery of possession. Such fact was found to be not only improvement of the earlier fact pleaded but also to withdraw the admissions in the earlier written statement and an attempt to introduce new CR No. 8085 of 2010 -2- case. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by learned trial Court. In the original written statement, defendants have admitted the family settlement which admission defendants seek to withdraw by seeking amendment in the written statement now. Such amendment has been sought after commencement of the trial as well. The petitioner cannot be permitted to withdraw the admission already made in the written statement when the only plea is that the complete facts were told to the earlier counsel. I do not find that there is a sufficient reason so as to permit the defendants to withdraw the admission already made in the written statement. Dismissed as no case is made out to interfere in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.12.2010 preeti