Paramjit Singh vs Baljit Singh And Others on 31 August, 2009

C.R. No. 2786 of 2009                                                    [1]




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

                                CHANDIGARH.

                                 C.R. No. 2786 of 2009

                                 Date of Decision: August 31, 2009



Paramjit Singh

                                      .....Petitioner

            Vs.

Baljit Singh and others

                                      .....Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

                          -.-

Present:-   Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
            for the respondents.

                   -.-



M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated April 22, 2009, an application

under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the

written statement filed by the defendant- petitioner stands dismissed.

The plaintiff- respondents have filed a suit for declaration that

they are owners in possession of the property mentioned in the heading of
C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 [2]

the plaint on the basis of the registered Will dated April 9, 1999 executed by

their father Gurbachan Singh in their favour. The defendant- petitioner at

the fag end of the trial has sought the amendment of the written statement to

take up the plea that the property in dispute was acquired by deceased

Gurbachan Singh by purchase out of the joint funds and that the property in

dispute is ancestral and coparcenery property of the joint Hindu family

which was purchased by the sale price of ancestral property.

While dismissing the application, the trial Court has observed

that the defendant- petitioner has not been able to satisfy the Court that

inspite of due diligence he could not raise the matter before the

commencement of the trial.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for

the respondents and also taken into consideration the statements of the

plaintiff- respondents and the statement of the defendant- petitioner made in

the Court. It has never been the case of the defendant- petitioner that his

father Gurcharan Singh had purchased the suit property from any joint funds

or formal pool of the family or from the sale consideration of any joint

Hindu family property. The defendant- petitioner cannot be permitted to

take up a fresh ground when the trial has reached at the final stage.

Counsel for the respondent has informed that the arguments are

being heard in the present case and it is listed for September 9, 2009 for

final arguments.

C.R. No. 2786 of 2009 [3]

In view of the totality of above circumstances, no illegality or

irregularity is found in the impugned order as such this revision petition is

dismissed.

August 31, 2009                                    (M.M.S.BEDI)
 sanjay                                              JUDGE