C.R. No. 4472 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4472 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.8.2009 Avtar Singh ......Petitioner Versus Ravan Deep Singh and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri V.K. Shukla, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). Defendant No.1-Avtar Singh, is in revision aggrieved against the order dated 6.4.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application for amendment of the written statement so as to plead that the property was a joint Hindu family coparcenary ancestral property and that Sadhu Singh, grandfather of defendant No.1 has executed a Will in his favour and his brother Bhupinder Singh, was declined. The learned trial Court has declined the aforesaid application on the ground that such application has been filed after having availed of C.R. No. 4472 of 2009 (2) eight opportunities to produce defendants' evidence. Evidence was not led even when the costs were imposed for not producing the evidence. It has been found that the factum of Will stands already pleaded in para No. 9 of the written statement and, therefore, the amendment in respect of the Will is not necessary. In respect of the plea of the property being joint Hindu family property, it was found that the same will prejudice the interests of the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs have already closed their evidence and that the amendment cannot be allowed in terms of the amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, after the commencement of the trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Baldev Singh and others v. Manohar Singh and another, (2006)6 SCC 498, to contend that since the defendants are yet to lead their evidence, therefore, the trial has not commenced. However, I am of the opinion that the reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the aforesaid judgment is wholly misconceived as in the aforesaid case, the parties were yet to file documents. It is not a case where the plaintiff has closed his evidence. Defendant-petitioner has not raised the plea of the fact that the property is a joint Hindu family property. Such plea, which is the basic plea of fact, should have been raised while filing the written statement. Such fact, if not pleaded shows the falsehood of the plea raised by the defendant, more so when such plea is sought to be raised after availing eight opportunities of leading evidence. The trial has obviously commenced after the framing of the issues and when the plaintiffs have concluded their evidence. If the amendment is allowed at this stage, it will lead to a de-novo trial, which will further delay the proceedings and such process is unwarranted. C.R. No. 4472 of 2009 (3) In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity, in the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.8.2009 ds