Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision:11.12.2009.
M/s Singla Trading Co.Purchase Centre Mandon
.... Petitioner
VERSUS
Gurdeep Singh .... Respondent
CORAM:Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina
Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for
Mr.R.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
SABINA, J. (ORAL)
Plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.62,000/-.
Defendant has filed his written statement. Thereafter, an application was
moved for striking off certain portion of the written statement. Vide the
impugned judgment, said application was dismissed. Hence, the present
Revision Petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merits and deserves
dismissal.
Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, deals with regard
to striking out pleadings, reads as under: –
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either
party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on
such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be
made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the
real questions in controversy between the parties.
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed
after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the
Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009 (O&M) -2-conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
In the present case, the grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner is that
the defendant-respondent has taken some unnecessary pleas with a view to
delay the trial. In a suit for recovery, the pleas of fraud and fabrication etc.
are generally taken to avoid liability. Respondent has taken various pleas
in the written statement. In case, the plaintiff-petitioner succeeds in proving
his case and the defendant-respondent fails in establishing the defence set
up by him, the suit of the plaintiff will be decreed. The learned Trial Court
has rightly held that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to strike of
para-2 of the written statement claimed by the petitioner. The fact that the
pleadings taken in para-2 of the written statement could have only been
taken by way of counter-claim, is also without any merit. It is for the
defendant to take all the pleas available to him and set up any counter-claim
if so advised. The fact that the counter-claim has not been set up by the
defendant does not entitle the petitioner to seek striking off para-2 of the
written statement.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
11.12.2009 (SABINA) shamsher Judge