CR No.6687 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6687 of 2008 Date of Decision: 3.12.2008 Krishan Lal ....Petitioner Vs. Parkash Chand & Ors. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.A.S.Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 10.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Samana vide which application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement has been declined. After the commencement of trial the petitioner sought to amend the written statement by adding to para No.4 the following averments:- “ The land was purchased not by individual person but by the partnership firm M/s Mahavir Rice Mills, Narwana Road CR No.6687 of 2008 2 Patran, vide sale deed dated 24.10.1980 for a sum of Rs.39780/- which was scribed/written on the stamp paper of Rs.4000/- in addition to the Registration Charges. Thus the land was costed to Rs.44200/- and the sale consideration, stamp and registration charges was spent by Partnership firm and has been declared and shown in the Income Tax Return/Balance sheet being filed regularly with the Income Tax Department.” It was claimed that amendment would not change the nature of case or cause prejudice to the plaintiff/respondents. The application was contested on the plea that application has been moved to prolong the decision of the case after availing six opportunities to conclude the evidence. The court observed that the suit was instituted on 15.12.2004 and the defendant/petitioner has already availed six opportunities to lead evidence. The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondents was for permanent injunction and the facts now sought to be pleaded are based upon the sale deed dated 24.10.1980 set up by the plaintiffs in their favour. The court observed that the facts sought to be elaborated were not necessary and the documents would speak in itself. It was further observed that the facts now sough to be pleaded are not such which could not be raised with due diligence before the commencement of trial. Thus, the application was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) CR No.6687 of 2008 3 830 to contend that amendment of the written statement stands on different footings as in the case of amendment of written statement the defendant is entitled to take new defence and also plead inconsistent stand. The defendant can explain the admission in pleadings and inconsistent plea can be taken in amendment petition even after taking different stand in the written statement. There can be no doubt with the proposition of law but the amendment sought should be necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case. A mala fide petition to prolong the proceedings cannot be allowed. The plaintiff/respondents have filed a suit for injunction and the question of title is not in dispute. Therefore, the amendment sought by the petitioner cannot be said to be necessary for proper adjudication of the case so as to invoke the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. Even otherwise, learned trial court has rightly observed that the amendment sought is in the nature of explaining a document which can otherwise be seen. If the plea raised by the petitioner is allowed the proceedings of the case are likely to be prolonged to the prejudice of the plaintiff/respondents. The court was, therefore, justified in holding that the amendment sought was neither necessary for the proper adjudication of the case and also that the amendment now sought could not be allowed after the commencement of trial. No merit. Dismissed. 3.12.2008 (Vinod K.Sharma) rp Judge