Civil Revision No. 4291 of 2008 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4291 of 2008 Date of decision : 23.2.2010 Ramesh Chand ....Petitioner Versus Gangadeen and others Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the respondents. S. D. ANAND, J. It is beyond the pale of controversy that the petitioner herein had initially raised a plea (in the course of the plaint) that the property in suit had been purchased from out of the joint Hindu family funds. Thereafter, he raised a plea for the leave of the Court to amend the pleadings and to allege that the purchase of the property in suit had been made from out of the personal funds of the members of the joint Hindu family. An averment, supportive of the plea aforementioned, was that there is a memorandum of family settlement dated 19.12.2005 in the entire joint Hindu family parties interse. The plea for amendment was declined by the learned Trial Court by observing that the allowance thereof would enable the plaintiff- petitioner to wriggle out of an admission made in the course of the plaint at the trial. Civil Revision No. 4291 of 2008 -2- *** In the course of the presentation before this Court too, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court was appropriate inasmuch as a party cannot be allowed to below hot and cold to wriggle out of an admissible made in the pleadings at the trial. It is otherwise common ground that the issues have not yet been framed by the learned Trial Court. It can, thus, be said that the trial has not yet commenced. The noticing of that factual averment enable the petitioner herein to wriggle out of the strict provisions of the C.P.C. which provide that an amendment cannot be allowed after the commencement of the trial. That a party can amend the pleadings even with a view to wriggle out of an admissible made earlier at the trial was held by the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and another 2009(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 899 and a Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Kalyan and others Vs. Hira Lal and others 1998(1) Civil Court Cases 337. No law to the contrary was cited before this Court. In view thus, of the factual presentation that the trial has not yet commenced and also in view of the law laiddown by the Apex Court in Sushil Kumar Jain's case and the Rajasthan High Court in Kalyan's case (supra), this petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The amendment plea filed by the petitioner herein shall stand allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs. However, the allowance of the amendment plea notwithstanding, it will be open to the respondents herein to raise whatever plea they want on the basis of initially taken up plea. The reception of the plea shall be subject to all just exceptions which shall not debar the respondents herein to point out the Civil Revision No. 4291 of 2008 -3- *** volte face staged by the petitioner herein by applying for amendment of the pleadings at the trial. Disposed of accordingly. February 23, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE