Civil Revision No. 5235 of 2008 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 5235 of 2008 (O&M) Jasvir Kaur @ Jasbir Kaur ..... Petitioner vs Shri Dial Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. R. N. Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. L. Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order passed by the learned court below whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of plaint was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in possession of the suit land. The suit was filed on 10.2.2004. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed by order of the court on 18.1.2007. The present application was filed on 23.5.2008 seeking to add para 5-A in the plaint which is to the following effect:- “a. That para No. 5-A shall be added as “That after the sanctioning the mutation of sale of mortgagee rights by Sh. Kishan Singh and Ronak Singh in favour of Telu Ram for an amount of Rs. 450/- on 1.5.70 Smt. Amro mortgagor offered/ tender mortgage amount of Rs. 450/- to Shri Telu Ram for getting the land redeemed but she actually did not pay the amount to Sh. Telu Ram for getting the property redeemed nor afterwards came to pay the amount of mortgage to Shri Telu Ram” shall be added.” The application was considered by the learned court below and Civil Revision No. 5235 of 2008 (2) rejected vide impugned order considering the fact that the petitioner/plaintiff had not brought on record any material to show the mortgage of the land in her favour and further that her evidence had been closed by order of the court. Allowing the amendment at this stage would have delayed the decision of the suit which in terms of the fact recorded in the impugned order was at the stage of cross-examination of the defence witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner was totally innocuous. It is only for completing the chain of events as are stated in the plaint, for which the amendment has been sought. Even in the suit, the claim had been made on the basis of mortgage. The delay as such should not come in the way for permission to amend the plaint when the same is necessary for the proper decision of the case. The respondents can very well be compensated with costs on that account. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the filing of the application at this stage for amendment of the plaint was merely to cover up the fact that there was no evidence led by the petitioner/plaintiff in spite of number of opportunities and the evidence was closed by order of the court. The application was filed by the LRs. of the plaintiff after her death on 9.5.2007. Altogether different stand is sought to be taken. The application having been filed after a gap of more than three years of the filing of the suit when the suit was at the stage of defence evidence, is highly belated and should not be allowed at this stage. The same would delay the proceedings further. Effort is to reopen the case as initially no evidence was led by the petitioner/plaintiff. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the present petition. In spite of the fact that suit was filed on 10.2.2004, no evidence was led by the petitioner/plaintiff till 18.1.2007 when the same was closed by order of the court. Even thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff remained quiet and application for amendment was filed only on 23.5.2008 when the evidence of the defendants was going on. Considering the fact that initially though plea of mortgage was taken in the suit no evidence was led by the petitioner in support of the claim made, by moving this application for amendment of the plaint at this belated stage, Civil Revision No. 5235 of 2008 (3) the effort seems to be to reopen the trial so that the petitioner can fill up the lacuna and cover up the earlier defects, which cannot be permitted. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9.1.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge