IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 424 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Ravi Dutt Sharma …. Petitioner Versus Inder Singh ….. Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting? No For the petitioner: Mr.Rajesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents: None _____________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order dated 8.10.2010 whereby the learned Trial Court has allowed the application for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) filed a suit for ` 78,900/- on the ground that the JCB machine owned by him was used by the defendant and this amount was due for the charges payable for the same by the defendant. The defendant 2 contested the suit on various grounds but did not dispute the fact that he had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff. The statement of the plaintiff was recorded in Court on 13.11.2009 and according to the defendant, it was on this date that he came to know that the person with whom he had entered into an agreement was not the plaintiff but the brother of the plaintiff Ramesh Sharma. In fact, suggestions in this behalf have been put to the plaintiff in cross-examination and thereafter, the application for amendment of the written statement was filed in the month of February, 2010. Basically, by means of this amendment, the defendant wants to assert that he did not know the plaintiff personally and he had actually negotiated with Sh.Ramesh Sharma, brother of the plaintiff and that Sh.Ramesh Sharma had held himself to be the plaintiff Ravi Dutt Sharma. 3. The case of the defendant is that when he saw the plaintiff and his brother together in Court on 13.11.2009, only then, he came to know that he had in fact, negotiated with the brother of the plaintiff and not with the plaintiff. At the stage of allowing an amendment, the Court is not required to go into the 3 merits of the case pleaded by a party. The issue as to whether the defendant actually had negotiated with the plaintiff or his brother has to be decided after recording evidence. This plea became available to the defendant only when the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Trial Court has rightly allowed the application for amendment of the written statement. I see no error of jurisdiction in the order of the learned Trial Court and, therefore, the petition is rejected. No order as to costs. December 1, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge