CR No. 6036 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6036 of 2009 (O&M ) Date of Decision: October 21, 2009 M/s Sant Industries ...........Petitioner Versus Punjab Financial Corporation and another ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate for the petitioner. -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Patiala (Annexure P4), vide which the application for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. Petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration that the order dated 2.9.2003 passed by defendant No.1 was null and void and against the Reserve Bank of India One Time Settlement Scheme and Punjab Financial Corporation One Time Settlement Scheme for loss assets. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-petitioner moved an application for permission to amend the plaint. Vide impugned order dated 4.9.2009(Annexure P4), the application has been dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant revision petition is devoid of any merit. By way of amendment, the petitioner wants to incorporate in CR No. 6036 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the prayer clause that the defendant company had not adjusted the subsidiary to which the plaintiff company was entitled as a matter of right. The case of the petitioner was that although it had been pleaded in para 9 of the plaint that the plaintiff had suffered huge loss due to non-receipt of subsidiary yet in the prayer clause, it could not be incorporated that the defendant company had not adjusted the subsidiary to which the plaintiff company was entitled as a matter of right. Admittedly, now the case is listed for arguments before the trial Court . Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as under:- “ 17.Amendment of pleadings.-The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such 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: 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” Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be allowed to amend the pleadings after commencement of trial. Petitioner-plaintiff had failed to establish that despite due diligence, the matter now sought to be raised could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. In these circumstances, the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff in view of the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The impugned order does not suffer from any material CR No. 6036 of 2009 (O&M) 3 illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed (Sabina) Judge October 21,2009 arya