Civil Revision No. 1927 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1927 of 2010 Date of decision : 22.3.2010 Jagdish Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Anil Kumar and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The relevant suit came to be filed in the year 2002 by the plaintiff-petitioner. It is only after long pendency of seven years that the plaintiff-petitioner opted to file an application for amendment of the plaint. The learned Trial Court noticed that the issues had been framed in the year 2003 and that the issues framed also included an issue with regard to existence or otherwise of there being any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It further noticed that the petitioner had taken about six years to conclude evidence. The present plea came to be filed only when the matter was fixed for cross-examination on certain witnessed produced by the party opposite. It was further noticed that it was not even an averment on behalf of the petitioner that sale deed qua which averments were applied for to be made had come to the notice during the pendency of the trial or that those were not to the notice of the petitioner. It also indicates that the existence of the sale deed aforementioned had been disclosed to the counsel who represented the petitioner earlier. The present plea came to be filed after earlier counsel was superseded by other counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Civil Revision No. 1927 of 2010 -2- reception of valid amendment ought not to be declined just because of the delay in filing thereof. For the very reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court, I am of the opinion that the proposed amendment came to be negatived on the grounds which are absolutely legal and acceptable in law. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly in limine. March 22, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE