Civil Revision No.4060 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4060 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision:07.07.2011 Subhash Kumar and another ......Petitioners Versus Kaul Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Sanjay Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are, that Kaul Singh son of Saroop Singh-respondent- plaintiff(hereinafter to be referred as “the plaintiff”) filed the suit(Annexure P-1) against Subhash Kumar(defendant No.3), Ashok Kumar(defendant No.2)- petitioner-defendants and others(for brevity “the defendants”) for a decree of declaration to the effect that the sale-deed No.6160 dated 09.03.2006 and sale- deed No.6402 dated 22.03.2006 executed by Devki Devi wife of Sapattar Singh- defendant No.1 as his(plaintiff) attorney in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, are totally illegal, null and void, result of fraud, mis-representation and have no effect upon the proprietary rights of the plaintiff over the land in dispute. 2. The defendants contested the suit and filed the written statement on 10.04.2006(Annexure P-2). 3. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court proceeded with and slated the case for rebuttal evidence and arguments. Thereafter, the defendants moved an application(Annexure P-3) for amendment of the written Civil Revision No.4060 of 2011 2 statement, so as to include the objection/plea of bonafide purchasers. 4. The plaintiff contested the claim of the defendants and filed the reply, inter alia, pleading that no amendment can be permitted to them at this belated stage and the application was stated to have been filed in order to delay the disposal of the suit. That being so, the plaintiff prayed for dismissal of the application. 5. The trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants for amendment of the written statement vide impugned order dated 18.04.2011. 6. The petitioner-defendants did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the trial Court and preferred the instant revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants, having gone through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff filed the suit (Annexure P-1) for declaration/injunction, as back as in March, 2006 and the defendants filed the written statement(Annexure P-2) on 10.04.2006. 9. Taking into consideration the entire material on record, the trial Court dismissed the application of the defendants for amendment of the written statement vide impugned order dated 18.04.2011. 10. What is not disputed here is that as soon as, the trial Court fixed the case for rebuttal evidence and arguments, thereafter, the defendants moved an application for amendment of the written statement, so as to take an objection/plea of bonafide purchasers. To me, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the defendants. Moreover, it has been specifically mentioned in para 5 of the written statement(Annexure P-2) “that sale-deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 are quite legal and valid and for consideration, Civil Revision No.4060 of 2011 3 which are binding on the plaintiff.” Therefore, to my mind, there appears to be no need for any amendment and the real controversy between the parties can effectively be decided in the wake of already existing pleadings contained in the written statement in this relevant connection. 11. Above-all, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons to dismiss the application of the defendants for amendment of the written statement, at this belated stage. Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed as such. July 07, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE