CR No. 5387 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5387 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : 29-10-2010 Smt. Uma Mehta and another ....Petitioners VERSUS Rai Sahib Mehta and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.K.Mahajan, Advocate for the respondents MAHESH GROVER, J This revision petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.2009 vide which the amendment sought for by the petitioners to the plaint has been declined. The petitioners have filed a suit for possession to which while denying the averments made in the plaint, respondents filed a written statement disclosing the fact that some of the land in question has been alienated by way of sale in favour of different persons. This forced the petitioners to file an application for amendment of the plaint on the ground that the sale is result of fraud and is not binding upon the petitioners. Application for amendment was moved on 6.8.2007 and the same being declined has resulted in the filing of the instant revision petition wherein the petitioners have contended that the impugned order has resulted in serious prejudice to their case. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that there has been no inordinate delay in CR No. 5387 of 2009(O&M) 2 filing the application for amendment and therefore the Court was wrong in observing that it was belated. It is further contended that the amendment sought for is primarily to further his case for possession of the land and since the factum of sale was disclosed in the written statement it cannot be said that the petitioners were lax in pleading this fact. The prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents who has supported the order impugned herein. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside. The petitioners having filed a suit for possession came to know about the sale deed upon the filing of the written statement which has necessitated the amendment. The amendment sought for by way of to challenge the sale deed is neither contrary to the original pleadings nor it can be termed to be filed belatedly. Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petition deserves to be allowed to incorporate the amendment sought for by them. Hence, the petition stands allowed with the aforesaid observations. October 29, 2010 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge