CR No.6436 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6436 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 21.7.2010 Kanwar Chand ......Petitioner(s) Versus Rashid Hassan and another ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.26047-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.6436 of 2009 At the outset it may be observed that counsel for the petitioner states service upon respondent No.2 is not necessary as he is not contesting the suit being ex parte. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction against respondent No.1 to the effect that he was owner of the suit land as the suit land was mortgaged with the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, with a further prayer that the sale deed executed by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and the mutation, be declared as illegal, null and void. The suit was contested by respondent No.1. The petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint for allowing him to include the plea that the plaintiff-petitioner has become owner in possession of the suit land by way of prescription. The aforesaid application was contested by defendant-respondent No.1. CR No.6436 of 2009(O&M) 2 Vide impugned order, the trial Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner holding that the amendment was being sought at the fag end of the case and the parties seems to be only to delay the proceedings. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the amendment sought was necessary for the just decision of the case and only a legal plea was to be incorporated. The petitioner was not to bring any evidence and thus, no prejudice was going to be caused to the respondent if the amendment sought is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Despite service, no one is present on behalf of respondent No.1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that proceedings in the suit are at the fag end i.e the case is listed for arguments. Moreover, there is no record to prove that despite due diligence, the petitioner was unable to seek proposed amendment earlier. Not only this, the facts pleaded by the petitioner were within his knowledge from the initial stage and the same could have been incorporated at an early stage but the petitioner has failed to do so. Thus, at this stage, it seems that the application for amendment has been filed only to delay the proceedings and in these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. July 21, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE