C. R. No. 2204 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2204 of 2010 Date of Decision : April 01, 2010 Mohammad Iqbal .... Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Want Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Gagan Oberoi, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendant Mohammad Iqbal has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.02.2010 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagadhri, thereby dismissing defendant's application (Annexure P-5) for amendment of written statement. Respondents no.1 to 4 filed suit for possession of the disputed shop by redemption of mortgage thereof. During pendency of the suit, respondent no.5 purchased the disputed shop and accordingly, respondent no.5 was impleaded as plaintiff no.5 in the suit, but no other amendment was made in the plaint. Defendant moved application Annexure P-5 for amendment of written statement to raise additional plea inter alia that the shop is worth more than Rs.30,00,000/- and therefore, could not have been mortgaged for C. R. No. 2204 of 2010 2 meager amount of Rs.3,000/-. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The amendment application has been rightly dismissed because it was second application for amendment after the first one was dismissed vide order dated 08.12.2009, which attained finality. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the first amendment application, the defendant-petitioner had not specified the proposed amendment. However, it was also the fault of the defendant-petitioner himself. If the defendant did not specify the proposed amendment in the first application, which was consequently dismissed, it did not give a right to the defendant to move second application for amendment on the same ground. Secondly, as noticed herein above, respondent no.5 was impleaded as plaintiff no.5 on account of purchase of shop by him during pendency of the suit, but no amendment whatsoever was made in the body of the plaint or in the prayer in the plaint. Consequently, merely on account of addition of plaintiff no.5, the defendant does not become entitled to amend his written statement. The proposed amendment has not arisen on account of addition of plaintiff no.5. On the other hand, the plea now sought to be taken, could be taken in the original written statement even before addition of plaintiff no.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after amendment of plaint, the defendant is entitled to amend his written statement. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Kalawati vs. Dharam Singh reported as 1993 (2) P. L. R. 716. The contention is untenable because in the instant case, the plaintiffs have not amended the plaint at all and only plaintiff no.5 has been added. In the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra), however, not only some more plaintiffs were added, but also their claim was incorporated in the plaint. In this view of the matter, the defendants in that case were held entitled to raise their defence to the C. R. No. 2204 of 2010 3 amended plaint. In the instant case, however, no amendment has been made in the plaint at all, except that plaintiff no.5 has been added. Consequently, judgment in the case of Smt. Kalawati (supra) is not attracted to the facts of the case in hand. Thirdly, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure also, the defendant is not entitled to amend the written statement because amendment application has been moved long after the commencement of the trial. The case was at the stage of defendant's evidence and the defendant, after availing of 2-3 opportunities for his evidence, filed application for amendment. For this added reason as well, the proposed amendment cannot be allowed. It cannot be said that even after due diligence, the defendant could not raise the proposed plea in the original written statement. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. April 01, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE