IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.777/2009 Date of Decision:12.2.2009 Rameshwar ..........Petitioner. Versus Chet Ram and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the petitioner-defendant. JASWANT SINGH,J Petitioner-defendant no.1 has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 8.9.2008, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Narnaul, dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. Further, a costs of 500/- were also imposed upon him. Respondents 1 to 13-plaintiffs (Chet Ram etc.), had filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the suit land. The said suit was filed on 5.11.2001. Issues were framed on 25.8.2004. Plaintiffs closed their evidence on 31.3.2006. After part evidence of the defendant no.1 (petitioner) had been recorded, he moved an application for amendment of the written statement. By way of the proposed amendment, petitioners-defendants wanted to incorporate an additional plea no.8 that mutation no.363 sanctioned on 6.7.1953 showing one Roora (grandfather of petitioners-plaintiffs 1 to 3) as adopted son of Hari Ram was wholly illegal, factually incorrect and fraudulent. The proposed CR NO.777/2009 2 amendment, as contained in para 6 of the amendment application (Annexure P/1) reads as under:- “That Roora Ram son of Fateh Ram was never adopted by Hari Ram and he had not succeeded except Hari Ram and the entry shown Roora as adopted son of Hari Ram in the revenue record of suit property including mutation no.363 sanctioned on 6.7.1953 is wholly wrong illegal, factually incorrect and fraudulent. The so called factually incorrect revenue entries do not cloth present plaintiff with any right, title or interest in the suit property.” In the reply filed to the application seeking amendment of the written statement, it was averred that in the previous two civil suits filed between the co-sharers of the entire land including the present plaintiff- defendants, Roora Ram was always shown as adopted son of Hari Ram and this fact was never challenged by the petitioner-defendant no.1 and other co- sharers. It is also averred that Roora Ram being the adopted son of Hari Ram had inherited mutation no.81 sanctioned on 6.12.1984 and since then his name is depicted in the revenue record showing his share in the joint land. It was further averred that the proposed amendment would not only change the nature of the suit but was also time barred. In any case the earlier suit had ended in a compromise decree between the co-sharers. The learned trial Court after considering the averments contained in the application and reply thereto, dismissed the amendment application CR NO.777/2009 3 moved by the petitioners-defendants holding that “... no reason were given by the defendant that why amendment sought was not incorporated in his written statement prior to commencement of the trial and it was also not mentioned that in spite of due diligence the abovesaid amendment was not incorporated in the written statement by the defendant prior to commencement of trial.” Moreover, it is amply clear that the additional plea sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of the written statement was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner-defendant no.1 at the time of the filing of the written statement and was not such a fact, which despite his due diligence could not be incorporated in the written statement initially filed by him. From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the application for amendment moved by the petitioners-defendants has rightly been held by the learned trial to be “nothing but to linger on the proceedings....”. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is hereby dismissed in limine. 12.2.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge