IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 05.07.2010 C.R.No.5020 of 2009 Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Pritam Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate, for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order passed by the learned trial Court on 12.08.2009, whereby the amendment sought by the petitioner in the written statement, was declined. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30.10.2004. The defendant has denied the execution of the said document in his written statement. The defendant has sought amendment in the written statement after the plaintiffs have already concluded their evidence and the case was pending for the evidence of the defendant. The defendant wants to produce an affidavit of scribe, who has since died, to prove that the agreement was not executed. It is the said application, which was declined by the learned trial Court on 12.08.2009. The learned trial Court has found that the defendant has sought amendment in the written statement after the trial has commenced inasmuch C.R.No. 5020 of 2009 as the plaintiffs have concluded their evidence. It is also found that the alleged affidavit of the scribe has not been produced on record, whereas the brother of the scribe has been examined as a witness by the plaintiffs to prove the execution of the agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the amendment sought is explanatory in nature, therefore, the defendant is entitled to amend the written statement. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The defendant has denied the execution of the agreement. The defendant now wants to prove non-execution of the agreement on the basis of the affidavit of the scribe, who has since died. Any affidavit of the scribe executed during his life-time cannot be read into evidence. As such an affidavit cannot provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to cross-examine the witness, therefore, such affidavit of dead person cannot be tendered in evidence. Apart from the said fact, the defendant has sought to amend the written statement after the commencement of the trial and when the plaintiffs had already concluded their entire evidence. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 05.07.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2