Civil Revision No.3909 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3909 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: August 10, 2010. Mamraj & Another ...Petitioner(s) v. Gurnam Singh ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Shri Manjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri R.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral): Learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.5.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhari vide which the application moved by the petitioner-defendant, for amendment of the written statement, was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner sought the amendment of the written statement after the commencement of trial. The learned trial Court, by placing reliance on Vidyabal & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr., 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763, declined the prayer for amendment, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, referred to above, has laid down, that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction, to allow amendment with regard to the facts which were within the knowledge of the party or could be found out with due diligence at the time of filing the pleadings. Civil Revision No.3909 of 2009 -: 2 :- The reason for coming to this conclusion was that the proviso to the Section, is in fact an exception to the rule, therefore the main rule will be subject to the proviso. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned trial Court was right in rejecting the application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy and Sons & Ors., JT 2009 (13) SCC 366, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down as under:- “32. To curtail delay in disposal of cases, in 1999 the Legislation altogether deleted Rule 17 which meant that amendment of pleading would no longer have been permissible. But immediately after the deletion there was widespread uproar and in 2002, Rule 17 was restored, but added a proviso. That proviso applies only after the trial has commenced. Prior to that stage, the situation remains as it was. According to the view of the learned Author Arun Mohan as observed in his book, although the proviso has improved the position, the fact remains that amendments should be permissible, but only if a sufficient ground therefor is made out,and further, only on stringent terms. To that end, the rule needs to be further tightened. 33. The general principle is that courts at any stage of the proceedings may allow either party to alter or amend the pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just and all those amendments must be allowed which are imperative for Civil Revision No.3909 of 2009 -: 3 :- determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The basic principles of grant or refusal of amendment articulated almost 125 years ago are still considered to be correct statement of law and our courts have been following the basic principles laid down in those cases.” I do not find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a different view to the one taken in Vidyabal & Ors. v. Padmalatha & Anr. (supra). Therefore, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order, which is in consonance with the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme. No merit. Dismissed. August 10, 2010. [ Vinod K. Sharma ] kadyan Judge