Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: May 26, 2011 Anjana Agnihotri and another .....Petitioners v. Krishan Kumar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Anshul Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) C.M.No.13873-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 7.5.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dabwali, Annexure P7, vide which application filed by petitioners under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code') for amendment of the written statement was declined by learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership and possession of the suit land. They have also challenged the validity of Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011(O&M) -2- sale deed dated 23.11.2005 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants no.2 and 3 during pendency of the suit. Written statement was filed. Issues were framed. Evidence of respondents-plaintiffs was closed. Ten witnesses of petitioners-defendants no.2 and 3 were also examined. Earlier an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code was also filed by petitioners-defendants for rejection of the plaint on the plea that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration, which was dismissed by learned trial Court and revision against the said order was also dismissed by this Court. In the written statement filed by petitioners-defendants plea was taken that sale deed was executed in their favour by defendant no.1 and by way of amendment in the written statement, petitioners-defendants pray for taking the plea that they are bona fide purchasers for consideration. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners- defendants that though ground regarding bona fide purchasers was taken at the time of filing of application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code, however, the said ground was not specifically taken in the written statement by counsel for respondents-defendants no.2 and 3. Hence, it is contended that petitioners-defendants no.2 and 3 had made a request to the Court permitting them to take the said plea specifically in the written statement by way of amendment. It is pertinent to reproduce Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011(O&M) -3- Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Admittedly, petitioners-defendants no.2 and 3 have purchased the property in dispute from defendant no.1 during the pendency of the proceedings. Learned trial Court while dismissing the application of petitioners-defendants observed that the sale is hit by doctrine of lis pendence as enshrined in Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and that plea of bona fide purchasers, which is sought to be taken by way of amendment, is not available to a third party by placing reliance upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Arjan Singh v. Punit Ahluwalia and others, 2008(3) CCC 556. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned trial Court in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of Civil Revision No.3508 of 2011(O&M) -4- appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 26.5.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge