Civil Revision No. 4931 of 2007 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 4931 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision : 6.1.2009. Kulwinder Singh Laddi ..... Petitioner vs Jaswinder Kaur and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate, for respondents no. 1 to 6. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the court below on an application filed by the petitioner/defendant no. 1 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement. By way of amendment, the following preliminary objections were sought to be added in the written statement already filed:- “i) That the suit as framed is not maintainable. ii) That the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Arora & others is necessary parties in the present suit. iii) That the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court Fee and jurisdiction. iv) That the suit is not within time. v) That the suit is collusive between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2. vi) That without obtaining Succession Certificate legal heirs of Plaintiff cannot pursue this case. vii) That amendment as submitted above is being sought by way of introducing the above stated legal objections just by way of elucidation of facts and the same do not in any manner, would cause any prejudice to the Plaintiff- Respondent. The Defendant- Applicant is yet to lead evidence. Civil Revision No. 4931 of 2007 (2) viii)It is, therefore, prayed that the Defendant-applicant may be permitted to amend the W/S to the above effect. Amended W/S is attached.” The learned court below allowed application filed by the petitioner to the extent that the petitioner was to take preliminary objections mentioned at Sr. No. (iii) and (iv) above. The prayer in the present petition is that the petitioner should have been permitted to raise preliminary objections no. (i), (ii) and (v) as mentioned above which go to the root of the case as the maintainability of the suit is also disputed. After the application for amendment filed by the petitioner was allowed partly, the submission is that objection which is preliminary in nature should have been allowed to be raised in the amended written statement which goes to the root of the case as the suit was not maintainable and further that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and still further it was the case of collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there would be no delay in the trial as after partial acceptance of the application filed by him vide order dated 11.9.2007, he is yet to commence his evidence in support of stand taken in the written statement. In any case, the onus to prove the objections raised by him by way of amendment would be on the petitioner/defendant only. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as far as preliminary objection no. (ii) is concerned, the same was not pressed by the petitioner even before the court below at the time of consideration of amendment application. As far as issue no. (v) is concerned, the plea regarding that has already been taken in the written statement filed. Even otherwise, this cannot be said to be an issue which is legal and preliminary in nature. As far as maintainability of the suit is concerned, the submission is that it was not pointed out in the application how the suit was not maintainable and in the absence thereof such a plea cannot be permitted by way of amendment of written statement. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I do not find that there is any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as far as preliminary objection no. (ii) regarding the suit being bad by non- joinder of necessary parties is concerned. A perusal of the impugned order Civil Revision No. 4931 of 2007 (3) shows that this preliminary objection was not pressed. Accordingly, the prayer for the same before this court in revision cannot be considered. As far as the objections regarding collusion between the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 is concerned, the petitioner has already taken this stand in the written statement already filed. This objection otherwise also cannot be said to be preliminary in nature, rather submission on merits of the case. As far as the objection regarding maintainability of the suit is concerned, in my view, the same is legal in nature. The court having allowed two of the legal objections in the form of objection regarding court fee, jurisdiction and limitation, the same also should have been allowed. Accordingly, the order of the learned court below is modified to the extent that the petitioner shall be permitted to raise the preliminary objection no. (i) re: non-maintainability of suit in the amended written statement. As the suit was filed in the year 2000, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal thereof. The revision petition is disposed of. 6.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge