IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 404 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Pritam Lal and another …Petitioners. Versus Roshan Lal …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Adarsh K.Vashist, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Hamirpur, dated 7.5.2010 whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioners (here-in-after referred to as the defendants) for amendment of the written statement. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit that the land in question is joint land of the parties and that the defendants is trying to raise construction over it without getting the same partitioned. The 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 defendants took the plea that the suit land was coming in their exclusive possession since the time of their ancestors and they have raised residential house and cattle shed on the said land. The case of the defendants was that they wanted to reconstruct the house on the old line. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. Appeal was filed by the defendants and during the course of appeal the defendants filed an application for amendment and by means of this amendment they wanted to amplify the plea already raised. In fact, a perusal of the proposed amended para No.2 clearly shows that only evidence is sought to be pleaded in the pleadings. It is settled law that in a plaint evidence is not required to be pleaded. 3. Furthermore, proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 clearly lays down that no amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the party which seeks amendment shows that despite diligence it could not seek such amendment or take such a plea prior to the commencement of the trial. 4. I have gone through the application for amendment (Annexure P-1) and I find that there is 3 not a word stated in the application in this regard. Obviously, the pleas which are now sought to be taken were available at the time when the written statement was filed and since there is no explanation in the application, as to why such plea was not taken, such an amendment cannot be allowed in terms of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. 23rd November, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge