C.R. No. 2180 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2180 of 2009 Date of Decision: November 19, 2009 Sanjay Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. Municipal Committee, Barwala …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.N. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff - petitioner has challenged the order dated march 27, 2009 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hissar, allowing the application of the defendant- respondent Committee to amend the written statement. C.R. No. 2180 of 2009 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has contended that by impugned order, the respondent has been permitted to withdraw certain admissions which had already been made on behalf of the Municipal Committee. Allowing the amendment would cause a serious prejudice to the plaintiff. I have heard counsel for the petitioner. It is no doubt true that generally by way of amendment, admissions which have come on the record to the benefit of opposite party, should not be permitted to be withdrawn but the peculiar circumstances of the present case warrant no interference because the plaintiff had filed a suit against the defendant Municipal Committee, Barwala seeking to restrain the defendant Committee from interfering in his possession of agricultural land measuring 260 kanals 4 marlas given to him on lease vide resolution of the Committee dated August 27, 2003. The plaintiff has sought an injunction to restrain the defendant- respondent from even cancelling the lease. The defendant- respondent Municipal Committee in the original written statement filed, had admitted the resolution dated August 27, 2003 but the defendant- respondent had sought the withdrawal of the admissions made in the written statement, inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff has been son of Municipal Councilor and the admissions which were made in the written statement at the instance of Advocate engaged for the Committee who happens to be the uncle of Municipal Councilor. By way of amended written statement it has been sought to be incorporated that the plaintiff in collusion with his mother Leela Devi and Smt.Sushma Mehta forged the register of resolution by unauthorisedly inserting resolution No.7-3 in the C.R. No. 2180 of 2009 [3] book of resolution of year 2003. It is also sought to be pleaded that on enquiry by SDM, Hissar, it was found that no such resolution had been passed in the meeting. I have considered the contention of counsel for the plaintiff that wrong pleas have been taken in the amended written statement to prejudice the rights of the plaintiff. It has been denied that the resolution had been passed by misusing the authority by any of the Municipal Councilor or that the admissions in the written statement were made with any malafide intention. Relationship of the counsel to the Municipal Councilor has also been vehemently denied by counsel for the petitioner. As this stage, it will not be appropriate to enter into the controversy whether the resolution dated August 27, 2003 had been passed in accordance with procedure of law or that it now stands rescinded by Deputy Commissioner or that it was obtained in a wrong manner. In case the plaintiff is able to establish by leading evidence that the resolution had been passed in accordance with the procedure of law or that rights of lease had been conferred pursuant to the valid resolution, it will be open to the trial Court to decree his suit. The permission to amend the written statement will not tentamount to believing that the allegations levelled in the written statement are true. The defendant will be required to defend the case which has been filed by the plaintiff- petitioner in accordance with law and the allegations levelled in the amended written statement will be required to be established during the course of the trial. No ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. C.R. No. 2180 of 2009 [4] Since the matter is pending for the last more than five years, the trial Court will make earnest endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously preferably within a period of one year after the receipt of a certified copy of the order. November 19, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE