IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.2563/2009 Date of Decision:5.5.2009. Ajaib Singh and others ..........Petitioners. Versus Baljit Kaur and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Sukhpal Singh,Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Jagraon, dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioners-defendants for amending the written statement. Harjit Singh and others-plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration against the petitioners-defendants on 22.5.1998. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Plaintiffs-respondents as well defendants- petitioners concluded their evidence. To be precise, petitioners-defendants closed their evidence on 21.7.2008. The case was fixed for rebuttal evidence when the petitioners-defendants moved the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement. In the said application it was averred by the petitioners-defendants that during the CR NO.2563/2009 2 pendency of the suit, with the intervention of the respectables of the Village a compromise was arrived at between the parties, wherein it was agreed that defendants shall execute a sale deed without any consideration in favour of plaintiffs for land measuring 6 kanals out of the land inherited by them from one Chanan Singh and in turn the plaintiffs will withdraw the ongoing suit for declaration filed by them. It was also alleged in the said application that in terms of the said compromise though defendant-petitioner Harnek Singh on behalf of all three petitioners executed the promised sale deed on 4.10.2002 in favour of respondents-plaintiffs, yet the latter resiled from the said compromise out of greed and dishonesty. In this backdrop, amendment of the written statement was prayed for. Upon notice, respondents-plaintiffs categorically averred that the sale deed dated 4.10.2002 had nothing to do with the suit land which was subject matter of the suit filed by them. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application. Hence the present revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the defendants petitioners and perusing the record, I find no illegality in the impugned order. It may be noticed here that in terms of the alleged compromise the sale deed was executed on 4.10.2002 whereas the petitioners-defendants closed their evidence on 21.7.2008. The application for amendment of the written statement, to incorporate the factum of alleged compromise, was moved only on 18.8.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants could not explain as CR NO.2563/2009 3 to what was holding the petitioners during this period of almost six years from seeking proposed amendment. In my opinion, the learned trial court rightly noticed that the instant application for amendment of the written statement was not maintainable at that belated stage. As already stated above, after both sides had led their respective evidence, the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence when the application in question was moved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1)RCR Civil 763 held that Court cannot allow amendment in pleadings after commencement of trial unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied, viz., it must come to a conclusion that in spite of due diligence the parties could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 5.5.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge