Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: January 27, 2011 Arun Juneja .....Petitioner v. Satyajeet Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Aman Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.Nos.2270-71-CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record the deed of compromise, Annexure P2. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly. C.M.No.32316-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2010, Annexure P1, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Faridabad, vide which application filed by petitioner-defendant no.1 for amendment of written statement was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent no.1-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreements to sell dated 2.6.2004 and 21.8.2004 executed by petitioner- Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010(O&M) -2- defendant no.1 in favour of plaintiff for sale consideration of Rs.28,50,000/-. Earnest money of Rs.50,000/- was paid by respondent no.1- plaintiff to present petitioner at the time of execution of agreement. On 21.8.2004, petitioner-defendant no.1 received another sum of Rs.5 lacs from respondent no.1-plaintiff. After vacating the premises in dispute, he handed over the possession to respondent no.1-plaintiff. Respondent no.1-plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, however, petitioner-defendant no.1 sold the property in dispute to respondent no.2 vide sale-deed dated 21.10.2004. Petitioner-defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing written statement by taking the plea that agreements are forged documents and he never executed such agreements to sell and the said receipt of earnest money is also denied. Respondent no.2-defendant no.2 filed separate written statement and raised the plea of bona fide purchaser of the suit property for consideration. He has also filed counter-claim seeking relief of injunction to the effect that plaintiff be restrained from interfering in his possession in the suit property and a mandate was also prayed against respondent no.1- plaintiff to the effect that he be directed to construct the demolished portion of the intervening wall of the two houses and to restore the original condition of the wall in dispute. After material evidence of respondent no.1-plaintiff already concluded, the present application was filed by petitioner-defendant no.1 for amendment of written statement levelling some allegations against his father and praying that he wants to amend the written statement by taking the plea that he had executed the agreements to sell in question in favour of the plaintiff. The application was contested by respondent no.2-defendant no.2. Learned trial Court dismissed the said application filed by petitioner-defendant no.1 by observing as under:- “5. After going through the case file and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has reached at the conclusion that the application under consideration merits rejection. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that earlier the defendant no.1 had taken a specific plea and had denied the execution of the Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010(O&M) -3- agreements in question by him in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement the defendant no.2 had also taken a specific stand by filing a separate written statement on his behalf. The defendant no.2 has placed on the file the photocopy of the complaints which had been filed by the present plaintiff and present defendant no.1 against each other and same had later on been withdrawn by both the parties to the aforesaid complaints. In such circumstances, it appears that now the defendant no.1 wants to amend the pleadings by admitting the execution of the agreement to sell in question in connivance with the plaintiff and if, at this stage, the defendant no.1 is allowed to withdraw his admission, earlier made in favour of the present defendant no.2, the stand of the defendant no.2 would be defeated. The principles of equity does not allow the defendant no.1 to amend his pleadings at this belated stage, when the plaintiff has led almost all of his evidence except the secondary evidence, for which the permission has been obtained by him from the Hon'ble High Court. The proposed amendment in the written statement of the defendant no.1 would adversely effect the case of the co-defendant and to protect the interest of the defendant no.2 this Court is of the view that the defendant no.1 cannot be allowed to withdraw the aforesaid admission earlier made by him in favour of his co-defendant by way of the proposed amendment.” Law is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy and sons and others 2010 (1) RCR (Civil) 27, that amendment of pleadings should not normally be allowed after commencement of trial, as has been rightly observed by learned trial Court. Petitioner-defendant no.1 intends to amend the written statement with an intention to defeat the right of respondent-defendant no.2 and hence, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial court in passing the impugned order by rejecting the prayer of petitioner-defendant no.1 to amend the written Civil Revision No.8312 of 2010(O&M) -4- statement at this belated stage and that grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 27.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge