C.R. No. 3319 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3319 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2010 Randhir Singh ....Petitioner Versus Mohan Lal ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioner. VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 5.4.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nabha, vide which the application moved by the defendant/petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for amendment of the written statement, stands declined. The learned trial Court, recorded a finding that the application moved was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The reason for coming to this conclusion was, that the suit by the plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/petitioner was filed, in which issues were framed on 1.9.2006. Thereafter, in spite of amendment application filed by the petitioner having been allowed, no steps were taken to file the amended written statement in spite of availing number of opportunities. The petitioner subsequently moved second application for amendment of the written statement. The learned trial Court thereafter held that this was merely an attempt to delay the proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by way of C.R. No. 3319 of 2010 (O&M) -2- amendment, the petitioner wanted to add following lines in para No.2 of the additional plea between fixures/word “28.12.2000” and “and” : - “In the presence of the marginal witnesses namely Gurjant Singh son of Sh. Kartar Singh resident of village Pedhan, Teh. Nabha and Darbara Singh son of Sh. Harchan Singh, resident of village Matorda, Teh. Nabha, Distt. Patiala.” In para No.2 between words “plaintiff” and “the”: - “in the presence of the marginal witness namely Gurjant Singh.” At the end of para No.2 the petitioner sought to add the following para: - “The plaintiff earlier also used to borrow the money from the defendant for the expansion of his business and household necessities. On 1.7.1997, the plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs.40000/- on interest @ 2% per month by executing a receipt in favour of the defendant. The defendant also got advanced loan of Rs.14000/- on interest @ Rs.2% per month, from Manjit Kaur d/o Gurdev Singh to the plaintiff, who is the cousin of the defendant. The said amount was returned by the plaintiff to the defendant and Manjit Kaur.” The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that the amendment sought was necessary for adjudication of the case. The learned Court, could have imposed costs for the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff/respondent, but could not dismiss the application for amendment, in view of well settled law that law of amendment is very liberal, and all amendments, which are necessary for adjudication of the case, are required to be allowed. The opposite party could be C.R. No. 3319 of 2010 (O&M) -3- compensated with costs for the delay caused. There can be no dispute with the proposition of law advanced, but, this does not help the petitioner. The amendment sought is one which was well within the knowledge of the defendant/petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had moved application for amendment of written statement, which was allowed, but he avoided to file the amended written statement and delayed the proceedings. The application, which is not bona fide and filed with a motive to delay the proceedings, can always be rejected, this is what has been done by the learned trial Court. The discretion exercised by the learned trial Court, can neither be said to be perverse or contrary to law, which may call for interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 19, 2010 R.S.