IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 6757 of 2008. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 14th July, 2009.
Harjinder Singh Petitioner
through
Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate
Versus
Sadhu Singh & Ors. Respondents
through
Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
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?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated
4.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division],
Nawansahr, allowing amendment of the written statement. The
petitioner – plaintiff’s grievance is that the suit was filed on 14.3.2005
and after filing of the written statement on 14.5.2005, the issues were
also framed on 3.6.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner – plaintiff started
leading his evidence and filed an affidavit of one of the witness in
examination-in-chief on 31.3.2006. The respondent – defendants
then moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 14.5.2007
seeking amendment of their written statement.
The aforesaid application has been allowed by the trial
Court after observing that merely because the case is now fixed for
the plaintiff’s evidence is no ground to deny amendment of the written
statement.
Relying upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in
Vidhyabhai & Ors. V Padmaiatha & Anr. 2009[1] RCR [Civil], 763,
it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that once the trial had
commenced on tendering of affidavit by the plaintiff/petitioner in lieu
of examination-in-chief, the trial Court has got no jurisdiction to allow
amendment of the written statement.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents
urges that the amendment is explanatory in nature as a specific plea
regarding their ownership over the subject property has already been
taken in the written statement and that such an amendment can
always be allowed in the interest of justice.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and gone through the impugned order as well as the amended
and un-amended written statement filed by the respondents. The
respondents have already taken a plea in the un-amended written
statement that the property in dispute is in their ownership and that
the relevant documents will be produced later on, they would be well
within their right to lead evidence in support of the said plea. They
need not plead their evidence by way of amendment of the written
statement. The fact of the matter is that the trial had commenced on
31.3.2006 when the petitioner/plaintiff tendered affidavit of one of his
witness in lieu of examination-in-chief. In the light of the proviso to
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC added vide Act No. 22 of 2002, the trial Court
had got no jurisdiction to allow the amendment in the pleadings
thereafter.
For the reasons aforementioned, the revision petition is
allowed, the impugned order dated 4.8.2008 is set aside and the
application dated 14.5.2007 filed by the respondent – defendants for
amendment of the written statement is dismissed. No costs.
July 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE