Civil Revision No.1480 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1480 of 2008 Date of Decision: March 11, 2008 Ram Singh & another ...Petitioners VERSUS Langar Satguru Ram Singh Ji Gurdwara Shri Bhaini Sahib & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagmohan Singh Chowdhary, Senior Advocate with Mr.Fariad S.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This revision is directed against the order declining the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of the pleadings filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The civil suit filed by respondent Langar Satguru Ram Sharan Ji for declaration and permanent injunction has been allowed. Civil Revision No.1480 of 2008 : 2 : The decree for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land is accordingly granted. The petitioners have filed an appeal against the same judgment and decree and also moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment to the effect that the respondent-plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the petitioner-defendants on blank papers for the purpose of withdrawing the suit, but got written the typed statement on blank papers showing admission of the entire case of the respondent-plaintiff and thus have played fraud upon them. It is further alleged that agreement to sell had taken place between the parties on 9.11.2002 and the petitioner-defendants had received Rs.11 lacs as earnest money and remaining amount of Rs.11 lacs was to be paid at the time of registration. By making them to wrongly understand that before registration of the sale deed, it was necessary to withdraw the civil suit, the respondent-plaintiff obtained the signatures of the petitioner-defendants on blank papers. It is further alleged that one Mr.A.K.Gupta, who was working with Mr.D.S.Chakkal was made to represent the petitioners, whereas he was working as junior to Mr.Chakkal. This application was contested by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the amendment sought was malafide and would lead to changing the nature of the suit. It is pointed out that all the appellants have filed individual written statements by engaging separate counsel, which, according to the respondents would rule out the possibility of fraud. It is also pointed out that the petitioner- defendants themselves appeared in the court and suffered statement Civil Revision No.1480 of 2008 : 3 : in the presence of Presiding Officer. The aim now according to the respondents is to withdraw from the admission which had been voluntarily made. It is noticed that suit filed by the respondents was for seeking declaration that they are owners in possession of the suit land with which the petitioners have no concern. The respondents also sought a declaration for cancellation of the sale deeds dated 30.10.2001 and 22.3.2002 on the ground that these were as a result of fraud as the petitioner-defendants had no right as owners in possession. It is noticed that the petitioners had stepped into the witness box. They were cross-examined by Mr.D.S.Chakkal and thereafter petitioners had led evidence in rebuttal. It is in this background noticed by the court that it does not seem to be a case of fraud which may have been practiced on the petitioner-defendants. It is also noticed that the amendment sought by the petitioners now would certainly amount to setting up a new case and a denovo trial. This is being sought at the appellate stage. The consideration for allowing amendment at the appellate stage would be different than one which may invite attention during the course of trial. By way of amendment now, the petitioner-defendants are wanting to withdraw the admission made by them in the written statement. The amendment sought accordingly is declined. The submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me that the present amendment is sought moment the petitioners learnt about the fraud would not suffice. The petitioners can be expected to be vigilant enough about their rights. It will be Civil Revision No.1480 of 2008 : 4 : hard to accept that the petitioners did not come to know about the fraud even while appearing in the witness box and were cross- examined. The factors would tend to rule out the possibility of fraud. Amendment of written statement at the appellate stage where it would amount to with-drawing admission can not be permitted in routine as is being sought. Dismissed. March 11, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE