JUDGMENT :

VIKAS BAHL, J. 

1. Present civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 21.11.2018 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), SAS Nagar, Mohali.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.1 to 3 had filed a suit for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.03.2015 for executing the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the written statement was filed in which the plea of the petitioner was that the said agreement to sell was forged and fabricated and did not bear the signatures of the petitioner. It is argued that subsequently an application for amendment was filed in which the petitioner wanted to take a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner/defendant No.1 had taken a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- as loan from Gurdial Singh and the agreement was signed on 06.05.2015 as security. It is submitted that the said amendment is necessary and thus the same deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3

3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, on the other hand, has submitted that in the written statement, the plea taken by the petitioner is that the agreement to sell was a forged and fabricated document, whereas, in the application for amendment, the petitioner has tried to build a case that he had signed the agreement as security. It is submitted that the said pleas are mutually destructive. It is stated that although a reference with respect to agreement dated 06.05.2015 has been made in the application but in the proposed amendment there is no such reference to the said agreement dated 06.05.2015. It is submitted that the agreement of which the specific performance has been sought is dated 30.03.2015 and the alleged agreement dated 06.05.2015 which was never pleaded in the original written statement has no bearing in the case and thus, the amendment application has been rightly rejected, which has been filed only to delay the proceedings. It is further submitted that the said application for amendment had been moved after the issues had been farmed and the plaintiffs had led their evidence and even three opportunities were granted to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to lead his evidence.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper-book and finds that the impugned order is in accordance with law and deserves to the upheld and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

5. It is not in dispute that the suit by the respondents No.1 to 3 for possession by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 30.03.2015 with respect to the suit land was filed in the year 2016. It is also not in dispute that the written statement was filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 on 13.09.2016 and that it was the case of the present petitioner/defendant No.1 that the agreement to sell dated 30.03.2015 as propounded by the plaintiffs was a forged and fabricated document and did not bear the signatures of the petitioner. It was further the case of the petitioner that the receipt dated 30.04.2015 did not bear the signatures of the petitioner. From the said pleadings, it is apparent that the primary dispute between the parties is as to whether the agreement to sell dated 30.03.2015 has been duly executed or not and as to whether the same has been signed by the defendant No.1/petitioner. The issues in the present case were framed and it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs had concluded their evidence on 17.07.2018 and thus, the trial has commenced and has made substantial progress. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner/defendant No.1 had availed three effective opportunities to lead his