Civil Revision No.1854 of 2006 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1854 of 2006 Date of Decision: May 13, 2008 Ranjit Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. & another ...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.H.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of two Civil Revision Nos.1854 of 2006 and 1855 of 2006 (Ranjit Singh v. Indian Sulphacid Industries Ltd. & another). Prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the written statement is declined, which he has impugned through the present Civil Revision No.1854 of 2006 : 2 : revision petition. By way of amendment, the petitioner was seeking to aver that correction deed was executed by Amarjit Kaur and Kirpal Kaur to the effect that the property falls in Khasra Nos.239 min and 260 min which he could not incorporate despite due diligence. Accordingly, the petitioner has sought amendment of his written statement to this effect. In a reply filed by the respondents, the aspect that correction deed was executed by Amarjit Kaur and Kirpal Kaur is denied. It is accordingly stated that the basis for seeking correction would not exist and any amendment which is sought after the amended provisions would have to be governed by the amended provisions as such. The court, while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner, has noticed that petitioner, who is defendant No.2, has already taken a preliminary objection to the effect that he is bonafide purchaser from Amarjit Kaur, he has though not mentioned that the property falls in Khasra No.239 min. The court has thus observed that the petitioner cannot take up the plea that he could not mention the khasra number inadvertently. If he had been vigilant enough, at least he could have mentioned khasra No.239 in his written statement/preliminary objection and one could then understand that because of correction, if any, carried out he would need to amend that aspect to incorporate that property falls in Khasra Nos.239 min and 260 min both. Once the petitioner has not mentioned the original khasra number of the property of which he claims to be bonafide purchaser, he cannot make a prayer for amendment of the khasra number on the ground Civil Revision No.1854 of 2006 : 3 : that he could not do so despite due diligence. It has also been noticed that this amendment is not necessary for the decision in controversy. The trial court has observed that the petitioner has taken this plea only to delay the suit. Earlier counsel representing him had made a statement on 2.2.2006 that he will conclude his entire evidence on the next date which was 15.2.2006. The petitioner, however, failed to produce the evidence and came up with this application seeking amendment. Mr.H.S.Sidhu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not point out as to how this amendment would be essential for just decision of the case. It is also noticed that petitioner could have proved the correction deed, if any, without incorporating the plea which he wishes to introduce by way of amendment. The prayer for amendment of the written statement accordingly has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any infirmity in the order, which would call for any interference. Once the prayer of the petitioner for amendment of the plaint has been declined, his prayer for leading additional evidence which was declined and which is under challenge in Revision Petition No.1855 of 2006 cannot be accepted. Both the revision petitions are, as such, dismissed. May 13, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE