Civil Revision No. 805 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.805 of 2009 Date of decision: 20.4.2010 Joginder Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Gurdarshan Singh Bath ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. P.P.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.S. Sandhu, Advocate for the respondent. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner filed a plea for amendment of the written statement which came to be declined by the learned Trial Court on a finding that it had been filed after inordinate delay and also because it would enable the setting up of a new defence and “to retract from the oral admission made by him.” In support of the averment that the impugned order deserves to be invalidated, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Shanti Lal 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 452. The ruling aforementioned is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal's case (supra), all that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had held was that all amendments which are helpful in effectively deciding the controversy must be allowed liberally in order to avoid Civil Revision No. 805 of 2009 -2- **** delay and multiplicity of litigation. At the same time, this Court did also indicate in that ruling that a party cannot be allowed to change the basic nature of the suit nor can it be allowed to raise an inconsistent plea by way of amendment. In this case, the learned Trial Court observed that proposed amendment is aimed at wriggling out of an admission in the pleadings. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to deny that the pleadings at the trial had been filed by the petitioners on 12.4.2001, that the party opposite closed evidence on 15.11.2002 and that the present plea came to be filed on 11.9.2007. It will be further apparent, from a perusal of para 5 of order under challenge, that there also is a rent note documenting the relationship between the parties and the number of the tenanted shop is also noticed therein There was, thus, no question of there being any misconception in the mind of the petitioners herein about the number of the shop which was the subject of tenancy. He cannot, thus, be presently heard to argue that he had inadvertently indicated an incorrect number of the shop which he wants to presently amend. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. April 20, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge