C.R.No.700 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.700 of 2009. Decided on July 30, 2009. Charanjit Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS Manmohan Singh & others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Notice issued to the respondents have been served, but no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents, as such, they are proceeded against ex parte. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 24.01.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Sangrur, allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, filed by the defendants, observing that the defendants have already taken the plea in the written statement that they are in possession of the suit property for the last many years and through their . . . 1 C.R.No.700 of 2009 application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, they only intends to explain and elaborate the said plea already taken by them in the written statement. The trial Court observed that the defendants have not led any evidence, as such, the amendment which is explanatory in nature, could be permitted and that no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. It is apparent that the plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for possession against Surjit Singh, who is now represented by his heirs Manmohan Singh, Jatinder Singh and Rajinder Singh. By way of amendment, the heirs of Surjit Singh want to take a plea that they are in possession of the suit property without any interruption, as such, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the evidence of the defendants was closed by order on 29.09.2008, after giving the defendants large number of opportunities. Defendants have already examined Jatinder Singh as a witness. The plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for possession by way of partition claiming a relief of permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. The plea of the defendants-respondents that they have become owners by way of adverse possession against another co-owners, on the face of it appears to be an attempt to prolong the litigation besides being contrary to the spirit of the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, which prohibits the . . . 2 C.R.No.700 of 2009 amendment of the pleadings after commencement of the trial. Besides this, the amendment sought for by the defendants does not appear to be necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. Taking into consideration, the stage of the trial, the impugned order dated 24.01.2009, permitting the amendment of the written statement, is not sustainable and is, therefore, set aside. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 30, 2009. rka . . . 3