Civil Revision No. 2425 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2425 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 09, 2010 Vaikunth Raj and others ...... Petitioners Versus Raj Mohani Sharma and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining permission to the petitioners to amend their written statement (by incorporating three new preliminary objections). The trial Court has noticed that the petitioners had filed written statement as far back as 18.02.2006. Thereafter replication was filed, issues were framed, the plaintiff led her evidence and after taking four opportunities for leading evidence the petitioners filed the instant application. The only reason given for seeking the amendment is that Pathankot is a small town and Muffassil pleadings cannot be deemed to be up to the mark. The learned trial Court has further noticed that under the extant provisions of the CPC amendment can be allowed only up to the stage of finalisation of issues. No doubt the Court is not powerless to grant Civil Revision No. 2425 of 2010(O&M) 2 amendment even thereafter yet in my opinion reasons recorded by the trial Court are germane to the issue and it cannot be said that the order suffers from any such material irregularity so as to be liable for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Consequently this petition is dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 09, 2010 sunita