IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4445 of 2010 Date of Decision: October 01, 2010 Rai Sahab …Petitioner Versus Uday Singh … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 29.05.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad, whereby the application C.R. No. 4445 of 2010 moved by the defendant – petitioner herein seeking amendment in the written statement was rejected. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant – petitioner. In the suit, issues were framed and plaintiff has already led his evidence; thereafter defendant-petitioner has moved an application seeking amendment in the written statement incorporating the pleading to the effect that his brother Sadhu Ram has also borrowed the money from the plaintiff on the same rate of interest on which defendant has borrowed the money from the plaintiff. In the written statement, defendant-petitioner has taken a plea that he has never executed the agreement to sell and rather, borrowed the money from the plaintiff and in the security thereof, plaintiff got the signatures of the defendant with the assurance to the defendant that he will get the same cancelled as and when money shall be refunded by the defendant. It has further been contended in the written statement that defendant has refunded the borrowed amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the plaintiff along with interest to the tune of Rs.3,000/- at the rate of 1.5% per month on 07.01.2008. 2 C.R. No. 4445 of 2010 Learned Trial Court has observed that in the present case, the main issue is as to whether agreement to sell was executed by the defendant or not. In the present case, the issue as to whether his brother has borrowed the money from the plaintiff is not relevant. I agree with the view taken by the learned Trial Court. It is settled principle of law that no amendment shall be allowed which is prima facie found to be unnecessary and irrelevant for the adjudication of lis between the parties. Moreover, in the present case, trial has already been commenced and it has not been explained as to why this plea was not taken at the initial stage. Petition is dismissed. October 01, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3