CR No.4603 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR No.4603 of 2009 Date of Decision: 10.9.2009 Rakesh Kumar .....Petitioner Vs. Prem Kumar and another ....Respondents .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Vikas Mehsempuri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Punj, Advocate for respondent no.1. .... RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner challenges the order dated 16.7.2009, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Barnala, dismissing his application for amendment of the written statement. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the court below has held that the question whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is barred or not is a legal point and can be decided at the time of disposal of the case, it was incumbent upon the trial court to have allowed the application for amendment of a written statement and to have framed an issue. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to lead any evidence on this issue. Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the suit has been pending since 2003. An earlier application for framing of an additional issue on the question of jurisdiction was dismissed for lack of pleadings. It CR No.4603 of 2009 2 is submitted that the endeavour of the petitioner is to delay proceedings and to prevent the decision of the suit. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. A relevant extract from the order passed by the trial court reads as follows :- “The plea regarding jurisdiction was also available to the defendant no.1 at the time of filing the written statement. Moreover, the fact whether the civil court has got no jurisdiction is a legal point and the same can be decided while disposing of the case even without taking a specific defence in this respect. No evidence is required to be taken by defendant no.1 on this point.” In view of this finding, it was incumbent for the trial court to have allowed the amendment of the written statement. The trial court refused to frame an additional issue for lack of pleadings. Thus, when the petitioner sought to incorporate relevant pleadings, his prayer for amendment should not have been rejected. It would also be necessary to mention here that counsel for the petitioner has made a statement on 17.8.2009 that the petitioner would not lead any evidence on the issue of jurisdiction. In view of what has been stated herein above, the revision petition is allowed. The order dated 16.7.2009 is set aside and the application for amendment of the written statement is allowed. The trial court is directed to take the amended written statement on record. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to lead any CR No.4603 of 2009 3 evidence. As the case is fixed for rebuttal and arguments, the trial court is directed to decide the suit, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10.9.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE