C.R.No.2830 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURTOF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, CHANDIGARH. C.R.No.2830 of 2010 Date of decision:21.5.2010 Chander Mohan ...Petitioner vs Satya Devi Kohli ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG. --- Present: Mr.Amarjit Markan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Gupta,, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Rakesh Kumar Garg,J.(Oral) This is defendants' revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby an application filed by him for amendment in the written statement was declined. As per the averments, respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for possession by way of partition of the suit property, which is an industrial plot and has been allotted to the parties by the Chandigarh, Administration on leasehold basis. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff-respondent has already closed his evidence and the evidence of the defendant-petitioner has also been recorded to some extent. The petitioner moved an application for amendment in the written statement to incorporate the plea that the property which was allotted on leasehold basis cannot be partitioned. The aforesaid application for amendment was contested. The trial Court vide impugned order has dismissed the aforesaid application. C.R.No.2830 of 2010 2 Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the plea taken by the petitioner being a legal submission the amendment sought was liable to be accepted as per the settled proposition of law, and therefore, impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the aforesaid argument by submitting that in fact there is no bar on the partition of the building erected on the site allotted on leasehold basis. In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Shri Chander Parkash Malhotra v. R.B.S.chahal, 1994(1)R.C.R.(Rent)312 Chiranji Lal and another v. Bhagwan Dass and others AIR 1991 Delhi 325 I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, a consensus has reached between the parties that let the petitioner be allowed to raise the legal plea, as argued by him, without amending the written statement. In this view of the matter, this petition is disposed of with the observations that the petitioner is at liberty to take the legal plea to the effect that leasehold rights in the allotment of site cannot be partitioned, without amending the written statement. Disposed of. ( Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge May 21, 2010 rk