IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.329 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.1.2009. Suraj Bhan Sharma ....Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Dass ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr.Vipul Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJESH BINDAL, J. **** Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by learned Court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of the written statement was dismissed. The suit for possession by way of specific performance was filed by the respondent way back in the year 1997. The application for amendment of the written statement was filed on March 20, 2004 after the evidence of respondent/plaintiff was already over and it was for evidence of petitioner/defendant. A plea was sought to be taken that there was some criminal proceeding pending against the respondent with regard to the same property and this fact is sought to be brought on record in the amended written statement. The learned Court below did not find any merit in the application considering the fact that after framing of issues the respondent/plaintiff closed his evidence on December 10, 2003 and thereafter the petitioner/defendant took four effective opportunities C.R. No.329 of 2009 (O&M) -2- for leading his evidence and on May 5, 2004, the case was fixed for evidence of petitioner/defendant by granting him last opportunity. However, it was at this stage that the application for amendment of the written statement was filed. A plea was sought to be taken that the petitioner was not keeping good health and he had given power of attorney to his wife to prosecute the case. A perusal of the paper book shows that the wife who was given the power of attorney is illiterate as she has put her thumb impression on the power of attorney. How she came to know regarding the fact which is sought to be impleaded in the amended written statement is not borne from the record as she could not read the pleadings. It seems to be an excuse created by the petitioners to justify reason to seek amendment of written statement at his belated stage. Learned Court below dismissed the application considering the conduct of the petitioner, the pendency of the suit since 1997 and stage thereof coupled with the fact that new pleadings which are sought to be added were well within the knowledge of the petitioners since beginning. I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (RAJESH BINDAL) 21.1.2009 JUDGE Reema