IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 02.11.2010 C.R.No.7187 of 2010 (O&M) Yasmeen ...Petitioner Versus Smt. Rashidan and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Defendant No.2 is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 20.09.2010, whereby the plaintiff has been permitted to amend the plaint so as to aver that the sale deed dated 06.04.2005 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 during the pendency of the suit is null & void. The said amendment was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- each to both the defendants. As per the interim order read by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defendants have accepted such costs on 09.10.2010. In view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Amar Singh Vs. Perhlad and others AIR 1989 Punjab and Haryana 229 the defendants are estopped to challenge the order passed by the learned trial Court on this ground alone. However, I have examined the order on merits as well. Admittedly, the petitioner is a purchaser of the property during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, what is implicit that such is being hit by C.R.No.7187 of 2010 (O&M) doctrine of lis pendence, the plaintiff has sought to state explicitly that such sale is null & void. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plaintiff has sought amendment after the trial has commenced, which is not permissible in terms of amended provisions under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the plaintiff is yet to lead evidence. Though the issues have been framed earlier, but since no evidence has been led and the amendment sought by the plaint is to state a fact which is a statement of law, therefore, it cannot be said to be unwarranted. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 02.11.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2