IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7119 of 2009 Date of decision : 27.1.2010 Arya Samaj, Bara Bazar, Panipat and another ....Petitioners Versus Sh. Madan Lal ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arun Singal, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. In the initially filed petition, the petitioners-landlord made an averment that the tenanted premises had been let out to the respondent- tenant. It was at a much later stage of the trial that the petitioners herein filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a view to obtain the leave of the Court to implead that the original tenant was somebody else; whereas the already impleaded tenant was a sub-tenant under him. The plea did not find favour with the learned Trial Court which held that the filing of the amendment application was only an endeavour to prolong disposal of the case. I find myself in complete agreement with the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Trial Court. A party cannot be allowed to set up a plea which would be completely at variance with the initially raised plea. If such an endeavour were to be allowed, there could never be an end of a litigation. Amendment of pleadings, of course, is allowable in cases which do not conceive staging of a volte face. In the present case, it is evident that the petitioners herein are at that exercise only. I find that the impugned order is based upon sound and acceptable reasoning and it does not call interference. Dismissed in limine. January 27, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE