IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2664 of 2008 Date of Decision:24.4.2009. Om Parkash ..........Petitioner. Versus Varinder Singh Dhawan ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Sandeep Chopra,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. JASWANT SINGH,J Om Parkash-defendant-petitioner filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)Ferozepur, dismissing his application for amendment of the written statement. Varinder Singh-plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 16.2.2002 executed in his favour by Om Parkash-defendant-petitioner. Petitioner-defendant filed his written statement on 16.12.2006 admitting the aforesaid agreement to sell and further expressed his willingness to execute and register the sale deed. It is thereafter that the petitioner filed instant application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement on the grounds that the respondent-plaintiff under the garb of getting a loan sanctioned in favour of the petitioner-defendant obtained his signatures on certain blank papers which were misused for preparing written statement. CR NO.2664 of 2008 2 Notice of the application was issued to the respondent-plaintiff, who denied the averments contained in the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned trial Court, after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -defendant and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the impugned order. The learned trial Court while dismissing the application found that in the written statement under the verification clause of written statement the petitioner-defendant in his own handwriting mentioned that “he admits the agreement and is ready to execute and register the sale deed”. While confronted with the aforesaid observation made by the learned trial Court in the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has not been able to deny the said factual position. In these circumstances, the allegation of the petitioner that respondent-plaintiff fraudulently obtained his signatures on blank papers and prepared written statement thereon, is not sustainable. That being the position, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that the petitioner having once made admission cannot be permitted to withdraw the same. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 24.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge