High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Cr No.257 Of 2005 : vs Unknown on 21 October, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Cr No.257 Of 2005 : vs Unknown on 21 October, 2009
CR No.257 of 2005                           :1

      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh


                                      Date of decision: 21.10.2009


            Umed Singh Vs. Kamlesh and others


      CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI


Present:    None for the parties.
            --

This revision is direction against the order dated

11.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),

Meham, rejecting the application of the defendant for amendment of

the written statement.

Respondent-deceased Sat Narain, filed a suit against the

present petitioner in the trial Court. During the pendency of the suit,

the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code

of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement. It was

alleged that at the time of the filing of the written statement, the

defendant could not take the plea that defendant No.2-applicant was

the bonafide purchaser of the suit land from defendant No.1. The trial

Court rejected the application, primarily, on the ground that the

amendment was sought after 11 years of the filing of the suit and even

when the witnesses of the defendants were also examined. The trial

Court also held that the facts alleged in the application were also in the

knowledge of the applicant. It was accordingly held that if the

application is allowed at this stage, it will change the very nature of the
CR No.257 of 2005 :2

suit.

I have perused the impugned order. The only ground for

seeking amendment at this belated stage was that the facts were not in

the knowledge of the applicant- petitioner herein. However, no details

has been given in the application as to when and how these facts came

in the knowledge of the defendant-petitioner herein.

In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the

impugned order. The present revision petition is misconceived and is

hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

21.10.2009                                     (PERMOD KOHLI)
BLS                                                JUDGE