C.R. No. 4458 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4458 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 Surender Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner-plaintiff has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India impugning the order dated 26.5.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Jind thereby rejecting the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner seeking to incorporate amendment in the plaint. While rejecting the amendment application, learned Civil Judge has observed that issues were framed way back on 14.6.2007. Evidence of both the parties have already been concluded and case is fixed for final arguments. It has further been observed by trial Court that applicant has failed to prove that despite of exercising due diligence plaintiff could not seek the proposed amendment earlier. 2. I have perused the amendment application, there is no averment in the amendment application as to whether plaintiff ever C.R. No. 4458 of 2010 2 exercised his due diligence and facts sought to be incorporated in the plaint were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff, or could not be taken in the pleadings for the reasons beyond the control of the plaintiff. No doubt while deciding the amendment application, Court should adopt liberal view, however no amendment ordinarily should be allowed unless and until party seeking amendment is able to prove that despite of due diligence facts were not in the knowledge of the party seeking amendment or same could not be taken before the commencement of the hearing for the reasons beyond the control of the party seeking amendment. 3. While rejecting the amendment application, learned trial Court has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error. 4. The petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. (ALOK SINGH) 20.07.2010 JUDGE reena