Civil Revision No.150/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.150/2011 Date of decision:10.1.2011. Hakam Singh .............Petitioner v Piara Singh and others ..............Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr.SS Salar,Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh,J. Defendant/petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 17.9.2010(P1) passed by the learned trial Court, whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking amendment of the written statement was dismissed. Plaintiffs/respondents Piara Singh and Gurmel Singh (brothers of the petitioner) filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit land, described in the head note of the plaint, on the basis of a Will executed in their favour by their deceased father Jail Singh. The said Will dated 31.3.1998 executed in favour of plaintiffs/respondents was challenged by Civil Revision No.150/2011 2 defendant/petitioner and instead they had set up another Will dated 28.10.2004 in their favour. It is made out from the perusal of the impugned order that Assistant Collector sanctioned mutation of inheritance on the basis of natural succession in the presence of both the parties. In the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it was averred by the defendant/petitioner that they had engaged a new counsel who told them that the factum of nature of the property being ancestral and coparcenary property was not incorporated in their written statement. Plaintiffs contested the application that the trial has already commenced and hence application was filed at a belated stage. In the impugned order dated 17.9.2010, the learned trial Court has noticed that the suit was filed in the year 2006, written statement was filed by petitioner/defendant on 14.3.2007. Issues were framed on 18.7.2008 and the petitioner/defendant moved the amendment application even after plaintiff had partly examined one witness. While dismissing the application the learned trial Court has found that petitioner/defendant has failed to explain as to why despite due diligence the facts, now being sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of the written statement at such a belated stage, could not be incorporated in their written statement. Further, in my opinion, the learned trial Court has rightly observed that defendants' plea for amendment was hit by the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereby amendment is not permissible once the trial has commenced. Civil Revision No.150/2011 3 In my opinion, impugned order suffers from no illegality or perversity, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 10.1.2011. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge