CR No.158 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.158 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2010 Karnail Kaur & Ors. ....Petitioners Vs. Baldev Singh ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr.Suresh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioners. --- Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 13.11.2009, passed by the learned trial court, vide which application moved by the petitioner for the amendment of the written statement stands declined. The review petition filed by the petitioners against the order was also dismissed. CR No.158 of 2010 2 The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for recovery against the petitioners as legal representatives of Saudagar Singh. It was claimed by the plaintiff that a sum of Rs.15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs only) was borrowed by Saudagar Singh against pronote and receipt executed on 2.5.2003. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement, and also filed counter claim. On an application moved by the plaintiff/respondent the counter claim was rejected. The petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter, revision was preferred in this court. This court is said to have allowed the revision petition, by permitting the petitioners to file an independent suit. It is the case of the petitioners, that because of rejection of counter claim, necessity arose to amend the written statement. Prayer made was rejected by the learned trial court on the ground of delay, specially in view of the fact that trial has already commenced, and therefore, as per the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the petitioners could not be permitted to take a plea which was available to them while filing the written statement or which could be known by due diligence. The petitioners thereafter filed review petition which also stands dismissed. Though in the revision petition it is mentioned that the revision filed by the petitioner stood allowed, but at the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners contended that this court permitted the petitioners, to file a separate suit. Ground of challenge by the petitioners was that his counter CR No.158 of 2010 3 claim was to be rejected, therefore, necessity arose to amend written statement, as plea raised in counter claim are now to be raised by way of amendment of written statement, this plea is totally misconceived and in any case, amounts to filling in lacunae, and the amendment cannot be allowed for this purpose as per settled law. No merit. Dismissed. 12.01.2010 (Vinod K.Sharma) sp/rp ` Judge