C.R. No.1153 of 2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.1153 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.08.2009 Pritpal Singh .....Petitioner Versus Harinder Singh ....Respondent Present: Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. B.R. Mahajan, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J. (ORAL) 1. The revision is against the order disallowing the application for recovery of money by the plaintiff. The original defence was that in the joint business, which the plaintiff and the defendant had been carrying on, the defendant had withdrawn in January 1995 and there had been no subsequent transactions between them. Issues had been framed and parties had gone to trial on the basis of the pleadings. The plaintiff had given evidence but when it was the turn of the defendant, he had taken four or five adjournments to produce the evidence and later came with an application for amendment of the written statement. 2. In the proposed amendment, the defendant wanted to contend that after the withdrawal from business in January 1995, they had executed a document in writing in the presence of witnesses that they had settled their accounts till January 1995 and no amount was payable C.R. No.1153 of 2002 (O&M) -2- and further, thereafter all the business in future, if any, shall be carried on a day-to-day basis. This amendment was found by the trial Court to be not merely belated but it was grossly inconsistent with its earlier version. 3. In the matter of amendment of pleadings, the Courts shall normally be liberal for, it is a privilege of the defendant to take up even inconsistent pleas. The only limitation to any amendment or additional pleading shall be a plea which resiles from an admission already made. In this case, although I do not find that there was any admission of the liability, I still find that there is no cause for interference, for the trial Court found that the plaintiff had been examined in full and the so- called document in writing was not confronted to either the plaintiff or his witnesses. The delay in moving an amendment of the written statement amounted to introducing a new case that could inconvenience witnesses and enable the defendant to take advantage of his wrong lapse. The dismissal of the application for amendment under the circumstances was proper and I see no reason to set aside the order. The order of the trial Court is affirmed and the civil revision is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.2500/- payable to the respondent. 4. It is represented by learned counsel for the respondent that by virtue of the order of interim stay, the trial of the suit was stopped. By the dismissal of the revision petition, I direct the trial Court to take up the case immediately and dispose it of within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 06, 2009 Pankaj*