C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 9, 2009 Jangsher Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Rohtash Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff is aggrieved by the order dated August 10, 2009 dismissing his application for amendment of the plaint after the defendant- Rohtash Singh has led his evidence. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one of the reasons for dismissing the application, given by the trial Court is that the amendment cannot be permitted at belated stage and that it will cause delay in adjudication of the matter. C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 [2] I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff in his suit for possession has challenged a decree dated July 19, 1994 in a case-Rohtash Singh Vs. Ram Devi, inter-alia on the ground that the decree had not been registered and that no transfer legally be made. He has also taken up the plea in the plaint that fraud has been played with Ram Devi as well as with the Court. The plaintiff has sought the amendment of the plaint after the defendant-Rohtash Singh in his cross-examination had made some statement pertaining to bank accounts of Ram Devi. Plaintiff claims that the thumb impression of Ram Devi affixed in the court before passing of the decree do not tally with the thumb impression of Ram Devi retained in the Bank record of Punjab and Sind Bank. He wants to take up a plea that defendant No.1 had got executed the decree by producing some other lady in place of Ram Devi. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the pleadings and the impugned order in reference to the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, I am of the opinion that the amendment has been sought long time after the commencement of the suit and that the plea of fraud having been played on the Court has already been taken by the plaintiff. It will always be open to the plaintiff to satisfy the trial Court regarding Ram Devi having not been produced in the Court without seeking the amendment of the plaint. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the amendment is not permitted at belated stage. C.R. No. 5162 of 2009 [3] In view of the above observation, no ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. September 9, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE