C.R. No.6349 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.6349 of 2010 Date of Decision: 30.09.2010 Afzal Masih Chaudhary ....…Petitioner Versus M/s United Church of Northern India Trust Association (UCNITA) and another ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Rahish Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant No.1-Afzal Masih Chaudhary has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 09.08.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application moved by defendant No.1-petitioner for amendment of written statement. Suit has been filed by respondent No.1 against petitioner and respondent No.2 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants (petitioner and respondent No.2) from interfering in possession of the plaintiff-respondent No.1 over the suit property and from taking forcible and illegal possession thereof and from raising any construction etc. therein. Defendant No.1 in the written statement admitted that plaintiff was owner of the suit property, but pleaded that defendant No.1 has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff vide C.R. No.6349 of 2010 2 agreement to sell dated 20.09.1981 and is in possession thereof pursuant to the said agreement. Defendant No.1 moved application for amendment of written statement alleging that now it has come to notice of defendant No.1 that plaintiff is not owner of the suit property and, therefore, has no locus standi to file the suit because the suit property has been transferred to its original owner vide order dated 01.12.1987 passed by learned Civil Judge, Allahabad in suit No.512 of 86. Consequential amendments were also sought in the written statement. Application was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1. It was inter alia pleaded that subsequent to judgment dated 01.12.1987 of learned Civil Judge, Allahabad, there is judgment passed by learned Civil Judge, Gurdaspur, upheld upto second appeal by the High Court. It was also alleged that proposed amendments cannot be allowed being not necessary for adjudication of the case. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Trial Court vide impugned order Annexure P-1 dismissed the application moved by defendant No.1-petitioner for amendment of written statement. Feeling aggrieved, defendant No.1 has filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that admission made in the written statement can be withdrawn by amendment and proposed amendment was necessitated because C.R. No.6349 of 2010 3 certain new facts came to the notice of defendant No.1-petitioner and, therefore, proposed amendment should have been allowed by the trial Court. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. In the first place, admission made in the written statement cannot be allowed to be withdrawn by amendment, although it may be allowed to be explained by amendment. In the instant case, however, defendant No.1 wants to completely withdraw the admission made in the original written statement regarding ownership of the plaintiff and wants to deny the plaintiff's ownership over the suit property by amendment. This cannot be permitted. Secondly, whole claim of defendant No.1 is based on alleged agreement to sell dated 20.09.1981 vide which plaintiff allegedly sold the suit property to defendant No.1 and delivered its possession to him. Since whole claim of defendant No.1 is based on aforesaid plea, defendant No.1 is estopped from denying the ownership of the plaintiff because defendant No.1 claimed to have derived his rights from the plaintiff under the alleged agreement dated 20.09.1981. Thirdly, the instant suit was instituted in July, 1998. By amendment, defendant No.1 wants to raise plea on the basis of judgment dated 01.12.1987 passed more than 10½ years before the filing of the suit whereas amendment application was moved in Janurary, 2010 i.e. more than 11 years after the filing of the instant suit i.e after 22 years of the passing of order dated 01.12.1987. Judgment or order dated 01.12.1987 sought to be pleaded by defendant No.1 had been passed long before he filed the original written statement. Fourthly, C.R. No.6349 of 2010 4 defendant No.1 has not explained as to how he has now suddenly come to know of order dated 01.12.1987. For the reasons aforesaid, it is manifest that amendment application moved by defendant No.1 petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court as the same could not be allowed. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court warranting interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 30.09.2010. A. Kaundal