C.R. No. 891 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.R. No. 891 of 2009 Date of decision: April 24,2009 Bhupinder Singh son of Teja Singh ..Petitioner Versus Gurmail Singh son of Naranjan Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg Present: Ms. Deepinder Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.P.S.Ghumman, Advocate for respondent ... Rakesh Kumar Garg,J. This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha whereby application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed. As per the averments made in this petition, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.73000/- as principal amount and Rs. 40997/- as interest at the rate of Rs. 1.56 % per month with effect from 30.10.2002 to 29.10.2005. The suit was filed on 12.11.2005 alleging therein that the petitioner had executed a pronote on 30.10.2002 and had taken a loan of Rs. 73000/-. The petitioner contested the aforesaid suit by filing written statement. It is further averred that in the meantime, petitioner discovered that originally a pronote had been written for Rs.10000/- in the year 1990 by Teja Singh father of the defendant and the aforesaid amount has been increased to Rs. 73000/- in 2002. On the basis of these facts, It has been averred that he wants to add a specific plea that the suit is time barred on the grounds that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was taken as loan by Teja Singh, father of the defendant in the year C.R. No. 891 of 2009 2 1990 but that amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been increased to Rs. 73000/- in 2002. The defendant averred that his earlier counsel has not stated true facts in the written statement and by raising wrong pleas of his own without reading and explaining the written statement to him. However, the aforesaid application for amendment has been rejected challenging the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is an established principle of law that amendment of pleadings must be allowed liberally. The litigants are not to be punished for their mistake and therefore, the amendment application filed by the petitioner should not have been rejected. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has argued that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing his remedy of amendment in pleadings and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vidyabai Versus Padmalatha 2009(1) Law Hearld (Supreme Court) 540, the application filed by the petitioner for amendment was rejected rightly. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and the record of this revision petition. In the application filed by the petitioner, it has not been pleaded that the petitioner was diligent in pursuing his case and despite due diligence, he could not incorporate the proposed amendment before the commencement of the trial. Moreover, the plea aof the petitioner is that his earlier counsel has not stated true facts in the written statement and had raised wrong pleas of his own without reading and explaining the written statement to him. However admittedly petitioner has not made any complaint against his earlier counsel. In the present case, mere change of counsel does not entitle the petitioner to put forth an altogether new story. If the allegations of the defendant qua the earlier counsel are taken to be true, the defendant should take appropriate action under the law against the counsel. It is settled proposition of law that the amendment should be allowed after the commencement of trial only if the party is able to show its due diligence. From the conduct of party, it is clear that petitioner was not diligent in C.R. No. 891 of 2009 3 pursuing his remedy. Thus, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. April 24, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) nk JUDGE