CR No.7257 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7257 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.1.2009 Daljeet Rubber Roll and Plastic Industries ......Petitioner Versus Ram Kishan Goel Industries ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. CM No.27176-CII of 2008 CM is allowed. Annexures P-2 and P-3 are taken on record. CR No.7257 of 2008 This is defendant's revision petition challenging the order of the trial Court dated 29.9.2008 vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. According to the petitioner, he has lost faith in his counsel as his case was not properly defended. There were material facts and circumstances which were neither pleaded nor brought on record through evidence and therefore, the following amendments were sought to be incorporated by way of this amendment: “(A) Since it is an admitted fact on record as pleaded in reply to para No.2 of plaint that the defendant had sold wooden to plaintiff for a sum of Rs.41,861/- vide different bills as such the defendant seeks to amend his written statement to the extent that the amount of Rs.38,900/- paid to defendant by way of entries in Bahi was a part of CR No.7257 of 2008 (O&M) 2 transaction for the sale of wood to it and liable to be adjustable as set off further remaining amount of Rs.2,061/- is entitled to be recovered from plaintiff with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum by pleading as set off and counter claim on behalf of defendant against plaintiff. (B) By addition in para No.2 of written statement at end of as “The Bahi entries cannot be looked into nor the same are legally admissible in view of Section 34 of Evidence Act” as the defendant had put his signatures only once in the Bahi of plaintiff. But the same were fabricated on different dates cunningly and fraudulently to claim as loan transaction while in fact it w as an advance to him being neighbour of plaintiff and shortage of Taahli Wooden was going on in those days. Since the parties were good in terms hence the defendant agreed to deliver from his balance stock, although he had closed his business, being remained neighbour of plaintiff, required to their sister married at Ludhiana. (C ) That the so called entry is not legally enforceable as it does not constitute any liability under the provisions of negotiable instruments Act and Indian Stamp Act.” Pursuant to the notice, the plaintiff appeared and contested the application by submitting reply, stating therein that the proposed amendment will entirely change the nature of the case and in fact the application was filed just to delay the matter. The trial Court after hearing the parties, rejected the application for amendment filed by the petitioner vide its impugned order CR No.7257 of 2008 (O&M) 3 dated 29.9.2008. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are certain admitted facts on record which were not pleaded but this contention is not supported from the record. Moreover, these facts which petitioner wants to incorporate by way of amendment were very much in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit. In fact, the reason given in the amendment application is that he had lost faith in his counsel as he had not pleaded his case properly. However, no evidence has been brought on record to show as to what was not pleaded or why it was not pleaded. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the petitioner that he had taken any action against his lawyer in whom he had lost his faith. Moreover, the suit was filed on 1.5.2003 and the written statement sought to be amended was filed on 24.4.2004. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 12.8.2006 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants' evidence and it is only thereafter that the application for amendment was filed on 25.1.2008 but no explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for filing this application after so much delay. In his reply to the amendment application, the plaintiff had stated that the Court had granted last opportunity to the defendant for his evidence and after that he filed many applications to simply delay the disposal of the case. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioner any where in the petition. The impugned order also mentions that in fact after his case was fixed for evidence on 12.8.2006 the defendant started moving one or the other application just to delay the proceedings. Thus, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. January 16, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE CR No.7257 of 2008 (O&M) 4