IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1271 of 2007. Date of Decision: 23rd April, 2008. Jagtar Singh & Anr. ....Petitioners through Mr. Parveen Kataria, Advocate Versus Chamkaur Singh & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Jagmohan Singh Chaudhary, Sr.Adv. With Mr. F.S.Virk, Advocate, for respondent No.1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner for amendment of his written statement, has been dismissed. The respondent No.1 – plaintiff filed a suit for possession of agricultural land comprised in Khasra No.1677/50, a portion of Khasra No.1677 situated in the revenue estate of village Dhad, Tehsil & District Ludhiana. Petitioner No. 1 is defendant No. 1 in the suit, whereas, petitioner No. 2 appears to be legal representative of defendant No. 4 (Satinder Pal Singh). The above-stated suit was filed on 2.12.1998. In his written statement stated to have been filed in 1999, the petitioner took up the plea that he is in possession of the property in dispute which he had purchased by way of registered sale deed dated 4.5.1994. In the light of the above noted stand taken by the petitioner, Issue no.4 has been framed by the learned trial court to the effect as to whether the defendants are bona-fide purchasers for consideration and are in possession of the suit property openly and hostile to the knowledge of the plaintiff? After the respondent-plaintiff closed his evidence, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement to incorporate an averment that he had in fact purchased Khasra No.1677/2/6 vide the aforementioned registered sale deed and, thus, he had nothing to do with Khasra No.1677/50, in respect of which the respondent-plaintiff has filed the present suit. The said amendment has been declined by the learned trial Court, giving rise to this revision petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, in my considered view, since the respondent- plaintiff has sought a decree for possession in respect of Khasra No.1677/50, the petitioner while leading his evidence, can always prove that he had purchased Khasra No.1677/2/6 and not Khasra No.1677/50. For this purpose, no amendment of the written statement is required. With the aforesaid clarification and observations, this revision petition is disposed of. April 23, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE