C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 Date of Decision: August 31, 2009 Paramjit Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Baljit Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order dated April 22, 2009, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant- petitioner stands dismissed. The plaintiff- respondents have filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the property mentioned in the heading of C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 [2] the plaint on the basis of the registered Will dated April 9, 1999 executed by their father Gurbachan Singh in their favour. The defendant- petitioner at the fag end of the trial has sought the amendment of the written statement to take up the plea that the property in dispute was acquired by deceased Gurbachan Singh by purchase out of the joint funds and that the property in dispute is ancestral and coparcenery property of the joint Hindu family which was purchased by the sale price of ancestral property. While dismissing the application, the trial Court has observed that the defendant- petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court that inspite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the commencement of the trial. I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents and also taken into consideration the statements of the plaintiff- respondents and the statement of the defendant- petitioner made in the Court. It has never been the case of the defendant- petitioner that his father Gurcharan Singh had purchased the suit property from any joint funds or formal pool of the family or from the sale consideration of any joint Hindu family property. The defendant- petitioner cannot be permitted to take up a fresh ground when the trial has reached at the final stage. Counsel for the respondent has informed that the arguments are being heard in the present case and it is listed for September 9, 2009 for final arguments. C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 [3] In view of the totality of above circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is found in the impugned order as such this revision petition is dismissed. August 31, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE