C.R. No.7990 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7990 of 2010 Date of Decision: 08.12.2010 Surmukh Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Smt. Satinder Kaur and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. R. S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by filing this revision petition to challenge order dated 30.11.2010 Annexure P-1 whereby application Annexure P-2 moved by petitioners for amendment of written statement has been dismissed. Suit has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 against petitioners and proforma respondent Nos.4 to 6. The suit was instituted on 25.01.2002 . Defendant Nos.1 and 2 moved application Annexure P-2 dated 06.10.2010 for amendment of written statement to plead that they had sold some land out of the suit land vide various sale deeds dated 29.01.2002 i.e after filing of the suit, although allegedly before receiving summons in the suit. It is also sought to be pleaded that even prior to filing of the suit, some land had been sold by defendant Nos.1 and 2 vide sale deeds dated 28.12.2001. It is averred in the application that defendant Nos.1 and 2 had informed their counsel at the time of filing of the written statement about the aforesaid sale deeds, but he did not take this plea in the original C.R. No.7990 of 2010 -2- written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC), restricting amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial of suit, is not applicable to the instant suit as the suit was instituted prior to insertion of the said amended provision. However, as noticed hereinabove, the suit was instituted on 25.01.2002 whereas amendment application is dated 06.10.2010. Amendment application was thus filed 8 years and 8 months after the filing of the suit. The only explanation by defendant Nos.1 and 2 for this long delay in seeking the amendment of written statement is that at the time of filing original written statement, they had informed their counsel about the aforesaid sale deeds, but the counsel did not take the necessary plea in the original written statement. Obviously, this explanation cannot be accepted. If defendant Nos.1 and 2 had informed their counsel, there is no reason why the counsel would not have pleaded the same. The counsel prepared the written statement on the instructions of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Every lapse cannot be explained on the ground of lapse of the previous counsel. This growing tendency to explain every lapse being by the previous counsel or the counsel in the lower Court or on account of illiteracy or poverty of the litigant cannot be accepted in every case, unless there is some really genuine cause. This is a lame excuse to start de novo trial of the suit. The suit is already at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments i.e at final stage. Proposed amendment of written statement would result in de novo trial of the suit which is already C.R. No.7990 of 2010 -3- almost 9 years old. There is no justification for permitting proposed amendment of the written statement. The amendment of written statement has been rightly declined by the trial Court. Impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is thus found to be without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. 08.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE