IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 6972 of 2008 Date of decision : May 22, 2009 Kuldeep Petitioner Versus Hem Chand Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent A.N. JINDAL, J. (ORAL) Learned counsel for the respondent has placed on record a copy of the plaint in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner wherein he challenged the agreement dated 4.4.2003 and in that suit he did not claim himself to be the minor at the time of the agreement. He has also brought to my notice that a plea sought to be inserted by the defendant by way of amendment is fabricated for the reason that regarding the copy of birth certificate an enquiry was held by District Registrar (Births and Deaths) who found, vide his report, that the said certificate is false and forged document. Actually his date of birth is 10.3.1985. Not only this, the defendant did not set up the plea of minority in his written statement. Had it been correct, then the petitioner would have come forward with such factual plea at the very first instance. It is further noticed that, in the present case, the application was filed much after the commencement of trial and after the plaintiff had already led his evidence. C.R. No. 6972 of 2008 2 It is further urged that in view of the Apex Court judgment delivered in case Vidyabai and Ors. vs. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763. The amendment could be allowed only before commencement of the trial but not thereafter unless it is shown that despite due diligence parties could not raise such plea. The circumstances reveal that the petitioner had full knowledge of the facts and no such application was intentionally filed earlier. For the foregoing reasons, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. (A.N.JINDAL) 22.05.2009 JUDGE reena