IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2890 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.05.2011 *** Ramesh Kumar .. Petitioner Vs. Smt. Mamwati & Ors. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present:- Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit filed by respondents No.1 to 3, his wife and children respectively, under Order 33 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for recovery of Rs.10 lacs as forma pauperis. When the case was at the fag end, he filed an application for amendment of written statement to incorporate the fact that petitioners Mamwati and Jyoti have taken up the job in a factory and are getting Rs.4000/- each. After the contest, the Court below dismissed the application vide order dated 18.4.2011, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. Heard. 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 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, admittedly, the application was filed when the case was near to the conclusion. According to the petitioner, he filed the written statement on 17.2.2005 and both the plaintiffs namely Mamwati and Jyoti, wife and daughter respectively got employment thereafter and as such the aforesaid fact could not be pleaded in the written statement. But it is evident from the impugned order that the petitioner pleaded that Mamwati and Jyoti are employed for the last 4-5 years, meaning thereby he was aware of the employment of the aforesaid persons, but he never bothered to incorporate such fact during all these years and filed the application for amendment on 11.4.2011. Thus, it cannot be said that despite exercise of due diligence, the petitioner could not get the aforesaid fact incorporated in his written statement by way of an amendment, at an earlier stage. He kept the proceeding in the suit going on and when the case was at the argument stage, he filed the impugned application. Considering these aspects of the matter, the learned Court below rightly declined the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the written statement. The Court below has passed a well reasons order, which warrants no interference by this Court. Dismissed. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE May 02,2011 Jiten