C.R. No.2077 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.2077 of 2009 Date of decision:09.12.2009 Nirmal Singh …Petitioner Versus Jagir Singh and others …Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. B. R. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. S. Verka, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Nirmal Singh-defendant No.1 has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti whereby application moved by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for amendment of their written statement, in suit filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, has been dismissed. By way of amendment, defendant Nos.1 and 2 want to plead that plaintiff Nos.1 and 4 and others in another suit No.68 of 2003 titled as 'Gulzar Singh etc. versus Karnail Singh etc.' effected compromise on 01.06.2004 and received Rs.3,00,000/- from other party and have admitted ownership and possession of the other party over the suit land for which they had no right to do so. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. On 20.04.2009, following order was passed by this Court:-. C.R. No.2077 of 2009 -2- “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that no evidence is to be led by the defendants after amendment of written statement. It is also contended that similar amendment in the written statement in connected suit has been allowed by the trial Court because amendment application in that suit was moved at appropriate stage whereas amendment application in the instant suit was moved belatedly due to mistaken belief of the counsel that amendment applications had been moved in both the connected suits. Notice of motion for 19.05.2009.” Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that similar amendment application (Annexure P-5) moved in another similar suit almost between the same parties relating to some other land has already been allowed vide order dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure P-6). It is contended that in that suit, the application had been moved at appropriate stage whereas amendment application in the instant suit was moved belatedly due to mistaken belief of the counsel that amendment applications had been moved in both the connected cases. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 (plaintiffs) contended that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proposed amendment because the suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 to 4 is a suit for permanent injunction only and in any event, defendants have to file suit for declaration and possession. It is also contended on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that the amendment application was moved very belatedly, when the suit was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. As C.R. No.2077 of 2009 -3- noticed hereinabove, similar amendment in another suit almost between the same parties, but pertaining other piece of land, has already been allowed vide order dated 01.12.2005 (Annexure P-6). Insofar as contention on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that defendants have to file suit for declaration and possession is concerned, it would be for the trial Court to adjudicate upon the said issue after the proposed amendment is allowed. The fact that the application has been moved at belated stage become insignificant in the instant case because learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that no evidence is to be led by the defendants after amendment of written statement. Consequently, if proposed amendment of written statement is allowed, disposal of suit would not be delayed inasmuch as the respondents would not be leading any evidence and the case after the completion of pleadings would again revert to the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments. Keeping in view all the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if the proposed amendment is allowed on payment of costs. In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed and impugned order dated 19.02.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti is set aside and application for amendment of written statement moved by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 i.e petitioner and respondent No.5 is allowed, subject to payment of Rs.2500/- as costs. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 09.12.2009 A.Kaundal