Civil Revision No. 5409 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5409 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Kadam Singh ....Petitioner Versus Hans Ram and another ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Parmod Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepender Ahlawat, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to challenge the order dated 25.8.2009 passed by the learned trial Court, vide which the application moved by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for amendment of written statement, stands declined. The petitioner in the written statement had taken a specific plea, that amount said to be earnest money was, in fact, loan amount, taken on interest. It was, however, not mentioned in the written statement, that agreement to sell was executed by way of guarantee to return of the loan. The petitioner, therefore, wanted to amend the written statement because of inadvertent omission in completing sentences in the written statement. The application was opposed. Civil Revision No. 5409 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent No.1 raised a plea, that by way of amendment the petitioner wanted to change the stand earlier taken in the written statement, and was taking steps to displace the plaintiff/respondent No.1, therefore, the amendment would prejudicially affect his interest. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for the reason, that the amendment was sought at the time when petitioner had availed number of opportunities for leading evidence. The learned trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion, that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr., 2009(1) CCC 798, the Court had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment with regard to the facts, which were within the knowledge of the party at the time of filing of the pleadings or could be known with due diligence. The learned trial Court was wrong in rejecting the application by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai & Ors. Vs. Padmalatha & Anr. (supra) as proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to the present case. The suit was filed prior to amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In absence of proviso, the Court was competent to grant amendment at any stage of the proceedings which is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case. The law regarding amendment of pleading is well settled that while deciding the application for amendment Court must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments. The Court should reject mala fide, worthless/or dishonest amendments. The facts sought to be pleaded could not be said to be such, Civil Revision No. 5409 of 2009 (O&M) -3- which were not relevant or necessary for adjudication of the case, specially in view of the fact, that plaintiff/respondent No.1, while appearing in the witness box, had shown his intention by claiming that he was ready to get back the money along with interest. As proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to the present case, as it has no retrospective operation. The learned trial Court, therefore, was wrong in rejecting the application on the ground that no amendment could be allowed after commencement of the trial. Consequently, this revision is allowed, the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 16, 2010 R.S.