Civil Revision No. 1690 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1690 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 06.04.2010 Kandhara Singh .....Petitioner Versus Swarnjit Kaur and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 1.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patti, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he was co-sharer in possession of half share of the suit property with a consequential relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from alienating the land more than their share out of the total khata of the suit land. The suit was contested by the petitioner by raising a plea that under the agreement dated 31.7.1990, the plaintiff and defendant No.2 had relinquished their shares, in favour of the petitioner on receipt of consideration amount, therefore, the petitioner was the owner of whole of the land in which the plaintiff had no right. The suit was filed on 18.11.2003. When the suit was at argument stage, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement to plead therein that Surat Singh, had executed a valid 'Will' dated 18.10.1980 in favour of Kandhara Singh to the extent of half share and Civil Revision No. 1690 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Tasbir Singh, Kabal Singh to the extent of other half. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by recording, that the plea taken for amendment was, that inadvertently the petitioner could not state in the written statement that the 'Will' dated 18.10.1980 was executed by Surat Singh S/o Natha Singh. The learned trial Court held, that the averments sought to be made by way of amendment, in fact, already stood admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint qua his share as also of defendants No.1 and 2. The learned trial Court also held that the plaintiff merely claimed himself to be the co-sharer in possession as per his share, and challenged the sale deed dated 29.12.2001 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Harkirat Singh. The learned trial Court, therefore, held that the 'Will' sought to be pleaded, was not relevant to the matter in dispute, nor it was necessary for adjudication of actual dispute. In view of the stand taken by the parties, it is to be held that the learned trial Court was right in holding that the nature of the defence was not to change by pleading the 'Will'. The learned Court was right in holding that application was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings, and start a de novo trial by raising plea of 'Will', though the same was not material to the adjudication of the case. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 06, 2010 R.S.