IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6757 of 2008. [O&M] Date of Decision: 14th July, 2009. Harjinder Singh Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Chauhan, Advocate Versus Sadhu Singh & Ors. Respondents through Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 4.8.2008 passed by the Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Nawansahr, allowing amendment of the written statement. The petitioner – plaintiff's grievance is that the suit was filed on 14.3.2005 and after filing of the written statement on 14.5.2005, the issues were also framed on 3.6.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner – plaintiff started leading his evidence and filed an affidavit of one of the witness in examination-in-chief on 31.3.2006. The respondent – defendants then moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 14.5.2007 seeking amendment of their written statement. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the trial Court after observing that merely because the case is now fixed for the plaintiff's evidence is no ground to deny amendment of the written statement. Relying upon a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Vidhyabhai & Ors. V Padmaiatha & Anr. 2009[1] RCR [Civil], 763 , it is urged on behalf of the petitioner that once the trial had commenced on tendering of affidavit by the plaintiff/petitioner in lieu of examination-in-chief, the trial Court has got no jurisdiction to allow amendment of the written statement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents urges that the amendment is explanatory in nature as a specific plea regarding their ownership over the subject property has already been taken in the written statement and that such an amendment can always be allowed in the interest of justice. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the impugned order as well as the amended and un-amended written statement filed by the respondents. The respondents have already taken a plea in the un-amended written statement that the property in dispute is in their ownership and that the relevant documents will be produced later on, they would be well within their right to lead evidence in support of the said plea. They need not plead their evidence by way of amendment of the written statement. The fact of the matter is that the trial had commenced on 31.3.2006 when the petitioner/plaintiff tendered affidavit of one of his witness in lieu of examination-in-chief. In the light of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC added vide Act No. 22 of 2002, the trial Court had got no jurisdiction to allow the amendment in the pleadings thereafter. For the reasons aforementioned, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 4.8.2008 is set aside and the application dated 14.5.2007 filed by the respondent – defendants for amendment of the written statement is dismissed. No costs. July 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE