CR No. 1003 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1003 of 2009
Date of decision February 26, 2009
Surjit Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
Parshotam Dass
........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Ms. G. K. Turka, Advocate
for the petitioner .
****
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?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The revision is against the order of the trial Court
dismissing an application for amendment of the written statement. The
written statement was sought to be amended after the plaintiff was cross
examined and the defendant had tendered his evidence and he was also
cross examined. It was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments
that the defendant had thought about amending the written statement
already filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a
judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Indian Bank
and another 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 668 where the Court has held that
Courts shall normally be liberal while allowing applications for amendment
of the written statement unless there was a bar of limitation, the pleadings
shall normally be permitted to be amended. I am afraid that the decision
CR No. 1003 of 2009 2
referred to by the learned counsel does not help the petitioner in any way.
This decision refers to the principle that has to be normally followed but in
this case the trial Court adverted to the fact that the facts which are now
sought to be introduced were already available and known to the petitioner
and sought to be introduced, especially after evidence of the defendant had
been tendered under the circumstances. The additional pleadings could
not be brought by means of an amendment. While evidence will always
follow to conform to the pleadings, the reverse shall not be true, evidence
cannot first be led in on matters not pleaded and subsequently an attempt
made to introduce pleadings to conform to evidence. The dismissal of the
application by the Court below is justified and there is no scope for
intervention in the revision.
3. The revision petition is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
February 26, 2009
archana