IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1509 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 12.03.2008 Baljit Singh and others ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Diwan S.Adlakha, Advocate vs. Mani Ram and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. The petitioners-defendants sought amendment of the preliminary objection No.2 of his written statement filed by him way-back on 1.4.2002 alleging inter alia that the year in which the respondent- plaintiff had allegedly separated from rest of the family and/or was no longer a member of the Joint Hindu family is “1970” and not “1976” as erroneously mentioned in preliminary objection No.2. The above-stated amendment has been disallowed by the learned trial Court after observing that if the plea taken by the petitioners- defendants that the partition had taken place in fact in the year 1970 is C.R. No.1509 of 2008 -2- allowed to be taken it would mean that Mani Ram-plaintiff-respondent No.1 was no-longer a member of the Joint Hindu Family and, thus, had no share in the suit land purchased by Chhitru in the year 1975. The amendment application has been moved by the petitioners- defendants after the respondent-plaintiff has led his entire evidence. In these circumstances, the observation made by the learned trial Court that it is not a case of simpliciter correction of a typographical mistake rather it amounts to taking an entirely new plea, appears to be correct. No interference in the impugned order, therefore, is called for. Dismissed. Needless to say that even in the absence of amendment in the written statement, the petitioners-defendants are not precluded to press preliminary objection No.2 and lead evidence in support thereof. March 12, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE