C.R.No.3008 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.3008 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.5.2011 Jasbir Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Dalbir Singh and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 15.2.2011 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar vide which the application filed by him under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-petitioner filed a civil suit No.429 dated 23.3.2006 for possession by way of partition of the land described in the head note with consequential relief of mandatory injunction. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated 11.8.2010 (P.3) was filed for amendment of the plaint. Upon notice, the same was opposed. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court dismissed the application vide impugned order (P.4), hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned trial Court has committed a grave error of law while rejecting the application for amendment of plaint resulting into miscarriage of justice as the amendment sought is very much necessary to decide the real controversy in issue and C.R.No.3008 of 2011 #2# the defendants-respondents are not going to be suffered in case the amendment is allowed rather the court should adopt a lenient view while granting amendment to pleadings until and unless the same is malafide. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Admittedly, the suit was instituted on 23.3.2006 and on the basis of pleadings of both the sides, issues were framed and parties had already closed their respective evidence when the application for amendment was filed at such a belated stage. Moreover, in the suit, the claim of the plaintiff-petitioner was for possession to the extent of 1/3rd share by way of partition of the suit land but in the proposed amendment, he is alleging that he has obtained the copy of jamabandi for the year 1982-83, which shows that there was a family partition in the absence of the plaintiff but in fact the share of the plaintiff is 1/2 and not 1/3rd and as such he is proposing to substitute by way of an amendment in the head note of the plaint 1/2 share in stead of 1/3rd and if that is permitted that will change the whole scenario and altogether a new case would be made out. In view of the amendment of Civil Procedure Code w.e.f 1.7.2002, no application for amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial can be entertained until and unless the court comes to the conclusion that the party is shown to have acted with due diligence. In the present case, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the plaintiff-petitioner has shown any diligence much less to say due diligence in the matter pending since 23.3.2006 and the present application for amendment of plaint is just to delay the proceedings and the same would C.R.No.3008 of 2011 #3# give rise to de novo trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with the the impugned order dated 15.2.2011 (P.4) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Amritsar warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 26, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE