CR No. 8091 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8091 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2010 Harsh Kumar @ Happy ......petitioner vs. Sanjeev Kumar and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 10.11.2010 whereby an application filed by defendant No. 3 for amendment of written statement was declined. Plaintiffs filed a suit for possession by redemption of the suit property. Defendant No. 3 claims to be a tenant prior to the mortgage. Petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement so as to incorporate that the nephew of the plaintiff and son in law of the brother of the plaintiff are aware of the possession of defendant No. 3 as tenant over the shop in question. It is the said amendment which has been declined by learned trial Court, inter alia, for the reasons that by virtue of an amendment the defendant wants to lead evidence, though, the evidence is not required to be pleaded. Defendant-petitioner has already taken a plea that he is a tenant in the disputed premises prior to the mortgage. It is for the petitioner to prove the said fact in the manner he wishes to do so but amendment in the written statement so as to incorporate that the nephew or the son in law of CR No. 8091 of 2010 -2- the brother of the plaintiff are not required in view of the Order 6 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. The evidence is not required to be pleaded. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13.12.2010 preeti