IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5299 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 16, 2009 Malook Singh and others ....Petitioners Versus Piara Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. The defendants have filed the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sultanpur Lodhi, whereby application filed by them under Order VI Rule 17 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the amendment of their written statement, was declined. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 12.2.2008. After the evidence of both the parties was closed, the case was fixed for documentary evidence. It was, thereafter, adjourned for 5.8.2009 for rebuttal evidence. At that stage, the defendants filed the application in question that they could not take the legal objection about the trial Court having no jurisdiction to decide the case as the alleged passage vested in the Gram Panchayat and if there was any encroachment, it was to be C.R. No. 5299 of 2009 -2- removed by the Collector and not by the civil Court. They also pleaded that the portion of the land marked by letters CD was in their possession prior to 1980 and their possession was continuous, adverse and in the knowledge of the plaintiff and the entire world. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction so as to restrain the defendants from making any construction in the alleged passage and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the gate installed at point C as shown in the site- plan. The defendants have already taken the objection of non-joinder of the Gram Panchayat as a party and being in possession of the portion CD. All this shows that the defendants were well aware of the facts from the very beginning but despite the same, they did not take the plea of adverse possession. Moreover, the plea of jurisdiction is a question of law and to raise such a plea, the defendants are not required to amend their written statement. The learned trial Court, while dismissing the application in question filed by the defendants-petitioners rightly noticed that they failed to show as to why they were not able to raise the plea before the commencement of trial despite due diligence and the application in question had been filed just to delay the conclusion of the trial. In view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision, which is, accordingly, dismissed. C.R. No. 5299 of 2009 -3- However, this would not debar the defendants from taking/arguing any legal plea available to them at the time of final arguments in the suit. ( T.P.S. MANN ) September 16, 2009 JUDGE ajay-1