1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2576 of 2011. Date of Decision: 20.4.2011 *** Radhey Shyam .. Petitioner VS. Om Parkash & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. P.R. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. Vide order dated 25.3.2011 application for amendment of written statement, filed on behalf of defendant No.2 Jaipal, who died after filing of the said application, has been allowed. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner-plaintiff has filed the instant revision petition. Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial and the same ought to have been dismissed by the learned trial Court. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance upon the case of Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763. Order VI Rule 17 CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a 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. By reason of the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 (Act 22 of 2002), the Parliament inter alia inserted a proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:- “Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the 2 party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” From the above, it is clear that the Court's jurisdiction to allow such an application is taken away unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. Adverting to the facts of present case, it is evident from the record that defendant No.2 Jaipal (since deceased) was earlier represented by a Court Guardian being of unsound mind. The appointment of Court Guardian was never opposed by the plaintiff. It has also come on record that after recovery from ailment, defendant No.2 filed an application for permission to defend the case of his own. That too was not opposed by the plaintiff. After these developments, defendant No.2 filed an application for amendment to incorporate the factum of execution of will dated 17.3.2004, which could not be earlier pleaded in the written statement filed by the Court Guardian, on account of the illness of defendant No.2 and his inability to narrate entire facts. No doubt, the application for amendment was filed after the commencement of trial, but from the sequence of events narrated above, it cannot be said that defendant No.2 was negligent in defending the case, but the aforesaid facts could not be mentioned in the written statement on account of illness of defendant No.2, during his lifetime, which is not the position in Vidyabai's case (supra).. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, taking into account these facts, the learned trial Court rightly allowed the application for amendment. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE April 20,2011 Jiten