C.R.No.3217 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3217 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.5.2011 Ajaib Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Tara Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Petitioner, who is one of the legal representatives of original defendant No.1-Chanan Singh has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 (P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala, whereby his application for permission to file fresh written statement has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 Tara Singh filed a Civil Suit No.370 dated 11.12.1997 for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 54 kanal, 5 marla described in the head note of the plaint with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his possession. During the pendency of the suit, present petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to file fresh written statement in C.R.No.3217 of 2011 #2# place of the previous written statement filed on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2. Upon notice the same was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 by filing reply inter alia submitting that the application has been filed after 13 years of filing of the written statement and the same is just to delay the disposal of the suit. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 3.3.2011, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court is wholly erroneous as on earlier occasion written statement was filed by the petitioner as general power of attorney on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2 while admitting the oral partition between the parties. In fact, there was no such partition and the written statement was filed by playing a fraud by the plaintiff while misusing some documents and the same was converted as written statement on behalf of defendant Nos.1 & 2. The petitioner was not aware about such facts but now after engaging new counsel, he has come to know regarding the filing of the abovesaid written statement and thus he wants to withdraw the admission made in the written statement, which is very much necessary in the interest of justice. In case, the same is not allowed, the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and injury. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the present petition and the same deserves dismissal. It is clear from the facts of the case that the civil suit was filed in the year 1997. A perusal of written statement dated 7.3.1998 (P.2) reveals that the same was filed by the petitioner himself on behalf of C.R.No.3217 of 2011 #3# defendant Nos.1 & 2 through his counsel after verifying the facts. Similar application was filed by the father of the petitioner as well as the petitioner himself and Civil Revision filed against those was also dismissed by this Court. After a period of 13 years, the present application has been filed, when the civil suit is at the fag end of the disposal. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 1.9.2000. Defendant No.3 also filed his separate written statement and his evidence was closed on 23.2.2001 and thereafter his additional evidence was allowed on 5.9.2002 and on 4.9.2006. Defendant Nos.1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte on 22.2.2001 and the application for setting aside the same was filed on 12.1.2005 and the same was allowed vide order dated 7.2.2005 only to join the proceedings and the revision petition thereagainst was dismissed on 23.2.2006 by this court. Gurnam Singh-brother of the petitioner being legal representative of Chanan Singh also filed an application to allow him to file written statement but the similar application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 8.11.2006. Prior thereto, defendant No.2-Karnail Singh also filed an application for amendment of the written statement but the same was dismissed on 3.2.2005 and therefore, it shows that there is one application after the another filed by defendant Nos.1 & 2 on one ground or the other. Learned trial Court has noted that this is the oldest case of the court. The evidence of the parties has already been concluded and in case such a prayer is granted that will amount to de novo trial which cannot be permitted in view of the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove. The petitioner is trying to prolong the proceedings by filing one application after the other and the same has rightly been dismissed by the learned trial Court and does not require any interference by this Court while exercising powers under Article 227 of the C.R.No.3217 of 2011 #4# Constitution. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with the impugned order dated 3.3.2011 (P.1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kapurthala warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 18, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE