C.R. N o. 5836 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. N o. 5836 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 23rd ,2011 Satyawati Sood @ Satya Sood .... Petitioner Versus Rakesh Sood .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Munish Kumar Sinlga, Advocate, for the Petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The present petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Satyawati Sood alias Satya Sood is directed against the order dated 21.7.2011 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, vide which the application filed by the defendant under the provisions of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for permission to file supplementary affidavit was dismissed. The petitioner is a defendant in a suit brought against her by Rakesh Sood, son of her sister, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 27.8.1994 with regard to plot No. 62-A situated in Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana. In the said suit, the evidence of the plaintiff – Rakesh Sood is already over. The defendant-petitioner is leading her evidence, in which she has filed her affidavit to form her examination-in-chief. She is yet to be cross- C.R. N o. 5836 of 2011 2 .. examined by the other side and she wants to supplement her statement, made by way of affidavit, by a supplementary affidavit. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court has dismissed the application observing that the facts mentioned in the supplementary affidavit will not carry any legal sanctity being beyond pleadings. It was also observed that if such plea was allowed, it will open flood gates for dilatory applications. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has brought this revision petition. I have heard Shri M.K.Singla, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. The defendant-petitioner is leading her evidence. Her cross-examination has yet not commenced and by bringing on record additional or supplementary affidavit to form part of her examination- in-chief she would not in any way cause any prejudice to the respondent. I also could find no material on record to say that the facts in the supplementary affidavit are beyond the pleadings of the defendant. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I find the dismissal of the application to be unsustainable. The revision petition is, consequently, allowed and the defendant-petitioner is directed to file the supplementary affidavit to form part of her examination-in-chief along with the original affidavit. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 23rd, 2011 som