CR No.6754 of 2010 ****** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6754 of 2010 Date of decision:14.10.2010. Smt. Mahinder Kaur …Petitioner. Versus Rameshwar and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. C.B.Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition is at the instance of the plaintiff against the order of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal dated 17.09.2010 by which an application filed by the defendants for amendment of their written statement, has been allowed. The defendant Nos.39 to 41, 45, 46 and 48 to 52 filed an application for amendment of their written statement in which it is claimed that they have purchased the land measuring 244 Kanals 17 Marlas by way of registered sale deeds for a consideration of Rs.28,08,000/- from the registered owner after verifying the revenue record. Thus, by virtue of the amendment in the written statement, they wanted to take the plea of a bona fide purchaser. This application is resisted by the plaintiff on the grounds that the defendants had the knowledge of the ground from the very beginning which is sought to be now taken, the plaintiff’s evidence has already been concluded and the amendment would change the nature of the suit. The learned Trial Court, after considering the objection of the plaintiffs, has observed that the law with regard to the amendment of the written statement is liberal than the law with regard to the amendment of the plaint and the delay is not a ground to decline the amendment. The merits of the plea, which is to be taken by way of amendment, is not to be considered at this stage, the additional - 1- CR No.6754 of 2010 ****** defence would not change the nature of the suit and the plaintiff can be compensated with costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the main relief sought by the plaintiff is that mutation No.365 sanctioned in the year 1955 after the death of Molu is wrong and illegal. The mutation was sanctioned in the year 1955 in favour of Baru after the death of Molu and the suit property was inherited by legal heirs of Baru i.e. defendant Nos.1 to 6. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 sold the land to the applicants (respondents herein) by way of five sale deeds of the years 1993, 1996 and 2002 and at that time they had taken the plea that they have become owners by way of adverse possession but now they wanted to raise the plea that they are bona fide purchasers. It is submitted that the changed stand would change the nature of the suit, therefore, the Court below has committed a patent error of jurisdiction in allowing the amendment. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available record from which I have found that the defendants only wanted to save their purchase on the ground of being bona fide purchasers which would not change the nature of the suit. Even if they had earlier taken the plea that they have become owners by way of adverse possession, that appears to be self-contradictory because if they are relying upon the sale deeds then their ownership cannot be by way of adverse possession. Hence, I do not find any error in the order of the learned Trial Court in allowing the application for amendment as it is well settled that the defendants can take even contradictory pleas in the written statement in order to challenge the suit filed by the plaintiff. In view of above discussion, the present revision petition is found to be without any merit and as such, the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. October 14, 2010. ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ) vinod* JUDGE - 2-