C.R. No. 5347 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5347 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Sarbjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. Raj Kumar and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. K.S Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Vide impugned order, the plaintiff- respondent had been permitted to amend the plaint and he has been permitted to incorporate the plea that he has been dispossessed during the pendency of the suit and that he is entitled to recover the possession. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that earlier the suit was filed for declaration and injunction only but when the case was fixed C.R. No. 5347 of 2009 [2] for evidence, a false plea has been taken that the plaintiff has been dispossessed. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned order, I am of the opinion that though the plaintiff- respondent has been permitted to incorporate the plea of he having been dispossessed but the trial Court has safeguarded the interest of the defendant- petitioner as it has not been held that the plaintiff- respondent has been dispossessed. Mere incorporation of plea that he has been dispossessed will not tentamount to presumption that the plea put-forth in the amended plaint is correct. Heavy onus will lie on the plaintiff- respondent to establish the specific day, date and time when he has actually been dispossessed. In view of the fact that no serious prejudice has been caused to the rights of the defendant- petitioner, no ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. September 16, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE