Judgment:
CR No.5730 o”
1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5730 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: July 11, 2013 Gram Panchayat ...Petitioner Versus Smt.
Mukesh Devi and others ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE K.
KANNAN Present: Mr.SP Chahar, Advocate, for for the petitioner.
Mr.Sandeep Kotla, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 3, 6 to 10.K.KANNAN, J.
(Oral) Defendant No.1/petitioner who had in its original written statement stated that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation of the property sought to amend the written statement to contend that the plaintiffs were not even in unauthorized occupation.
This was rejected on the objection taken by the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendant was trying to modify its plea and resile from an admission which had already been made.
The plaintiff's side had actually been closed and the amendment had been sought more than six years after the statement during the couRs.of trial.
The dismissal of the application, according to him, therefore, was justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the statement that purported to contain an admission that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation was erroneous and it had been got prepared through a counsel who is not no more.
Only in the couRs.of trial, it was seen that a wrong statement has been filed.
I examined whole of the written CR No.5730 o”
2. statement to see whether there was any accidental error that has crept in the written statement.
If the defendant had stated that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation and had also contended that the defendant Panchayat itself was in possession or was exercising acts of possession, then the previous statement that the plaintiffs were in unauthorized occupation could be taken to have been an accidental step or an unintended error.
In no portion of the statement, there is any assertion that the defendant is in possession of the property or that there had been any acts of ownership or possession.
The defendant was attempting to characterize the plaintiffs' possession as unauthorized and hence was disentitled to the relief for injunction.
The amendment, which it is not trying to make, surely means withdrawal of an admission, which has been already made and not a correction of unintended error.
Dismissal of the application for amendment was justified and I do not find any reason for intervention.
The Revision Petition is dismissed.
July 11, 2013 (K.KANNAN) prem JUDGE