CR 16 of 2008. 28.2.2008 Present: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is one of the defendants in the suit out of which the present revision arises. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Court on 29.11.2007 rejecting application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the written statement. That application was contested by the plaintiffs- respondents on a number of grounds and the learned trial Court rejected the application holding that the amendment sought seems to have been with a view to prolong the proceedings of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has placed reliance on a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that allowing amendment of pleadings, more especially the written statement is the rule and rejection an exception. He also submits that -2- reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court in rejecting the application cannot be sustained as it is against the established law / precedents on the question of amendment in pleadings as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Even if it is assumed that the application has been filed at a late stage, delay cannot be a ground for rejection of the application. I do not propose to interfere with the order at this stage as the case is now listed for arguments/judgment before the learned trial Court. Suffice it to say that it would be open to the petitioner to urge all the points taken in this petition, in the appeal which may be preferred by the defendants in case the suit is decided against them. If and when such objections are taken as a ground of appeal, the learned appellate Court shall deal with them in accordance with the settled principles of law. This petition is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous application(s) shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. February 28, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.