C.R.No.2626 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2626 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.4.2011 Sham Lal Sajdeh ….Petitioner Vs. Naranjan Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant No.1-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.1.2011 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar vide which his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement filed has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit dated 12.11.2001 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement executed by defendants regarding the property described in the head note of the plain. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 6.9.2010 (P.2) was filed by defendants for amendment of written statement but the same was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and after hearing both the parties, learned trial Court has dismissed the said application, hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that learned trial Court has seriously erred while dismissing the application for amendment of the written statement as the amendment will go the root of the case to decide C.R.No.2626 of 2011 #2# the real controversy in issue regarding the execution of attorney in favour of defendant No.1-petitioner and the execution of agreement on basis thereof whether the agreement is valid or not. It is further argued that the trial is at the initial stage and will not make any substantial change in the defence of the petitioner-defendant. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court is not persuaded to accept the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner, hence the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Admittedly, the suit for specific performance and possession was filed in the year 2001 on the basis of an alleged agreement dated 18.12.2000. The defendants filed their written statement on 16.9.2004 and thereafter on the pleadings of parties, issues were framed and plaintiff had already examined his three witnesses. In the written statement, defendant Nos.2 to 8 have admitted the factum of execution of general power of attorney in favour of defendant No.1/petitioner but by way of application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the admission is sought to be withdrawn by proposing the amendment in the written statement, which is not at all justified at such a belated stage. In view of the amendment of Civil Procedure Code w.e.f 1.7.2002, no application for amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial can be entertained until and unless the court comes to the conclusion that the party is shown to have acted with due diligence. In the present case, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the defendant No.1-petitioner has shown any diligence much less to say due diligence in the matter rather the case is pending for the last 10 years C.R.No.2626 of 2011 #3# and the present application for amendment of written statement is just to prolong the litigation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with impugned order dated 25.1.2011 (P.1) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Amritsar warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. April 21, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE