CR No. 6782 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6782 of 2008 Decided on :08 -12-2008 Krishan Kumar and another ....petitioners VERSUS Rameshwar Dayal and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitionersss. MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 4.10.2008 by which the prayer of the petitioners for amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 has been declined. The petitioners are a licencee under the respondent which relationship he wants to deny by amending the written statement. The amendment which has been sought is to the effect that a third person by the name of Gopal has filed a suit alleging the ownership of the suit property. Prior to this a civil suit already stands decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated 12.1.2005 and the present petitioners had filed a civil appeal against the same. In the suit the respondent has alleged that he is the owner of the property and the petitioners are the licencees. The petitioners never denied the relationship till the suit reached the argumentative stage and now by virtue of the application, the plea of the denial of relationship is sought to be intorduced. That apart, another amendment which the petitioners sought to CR No. 6782 of 2008 2 incorporate is regarding the identity of the property. This aspect of the matter was known to him right from the day when the suit was filed and he has been contesting the same without raising this plea. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioners is apparently mis-conceived. They have denied that they were inducted as licencees by the respondent who claimed the ownership of the property which stands established by way of decree and judgment in his favour. Accordingly, it does not lie in their mouth to deny the relationship with the respondent. In so far as the second aspect of the amendment is concerned, it has already been observed that the fact was already known to him and the inadvertence which the petitioners pleads is not believable. Consequently, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. December 8 , 2008 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge