Civil Revision No. 2604 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2604 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: April 22 , 2010 Pankaj Sharma ...... Petitioner Versus Hoshiar Singh and another ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 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 amendment in the reply to the counter claim. The petitioner had filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession over certain land. Specific allegation was made in the plaint that the Gram Panchayat was the owner of the land in dispute. This specific allegation was specifically admitted in the written statement. Along with the written statement the respondent also filed a counter claim for eviction of the petitioner from the land in dispute. In that counter claim he described himself as the landlord of the premises. The petitioner filed reply to that Civil Revision No. 2604 of 2010(O&M) 2 counter claim in August, 2006. Thereafter the suit progressed and in February, 2010 when it was fixed for final arguments the instant application was moved seeking amendment of the reply of the counter claim to take two pleas: (1) impleading Gram Panchayat as a party and (2) since the land belonged to Gram Panchayat, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. The learned trial Court dismissed this application primarily on the ground of delay and the lack of any explanation as to why the said plea was not taken in the original reply. Once it is admitted by both the parties that the real owner is the Gram Panchayat its absence would hardly be material since only the dispute between the parties to the lis would be decided. As regards question regarding jurisdiction, learned trial Court has rightly relied upon Section 21 of the CPC to hold that the question of jurisdiction could be raised on or before the date on which issues are framed. In my opinion the order suffers from no 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 22, 2010 sunita