Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision:11.12.2009. M/s Singla Trading Co.Purchase Centre Mandon .... Petitioner VERSUS Gurdeep Singh .... Respondent CORAM:Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for Mr.R.K.Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SABINA, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff-petitioner has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.62,000/-. Defendant has filed his written statement. Thereafter, an application was moved for striking off certain portion of the written statement. Vide the impugned judgment, said application was dismissed. Hence, the present Revision Petition. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition is devoid of any merits and deserves dismissal. Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, deals with regard to striking out pleadings, reads as under: - “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the Civil Revision No.6828 of 2009 (O&M) -2- conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.” In the present case, the grievance of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the defendant-respondent has taken some unnecessary pleas with a view to delay the trial. In a suit for recovery, the pleas of fraud and fabrication etc. are generally taken to avoid liability. Respondent has taken various pleas in the written statement. In case, the plaintiff-petitioner succeeds in proving his case and the defendant-respondent fails in establishing the defence set up by him, the suit of the plaintiff will be decreed. The learned Trial Court has rightly held that at this stage, it would not be appropriate to strike of para-2 of the written statement claimed by the petitioner. The fact that the pleadings taken in para-2 of the written statement could have only been taken by way of counter-claim, is also without any merit. It is for the defendant to take all the pleas available to him and set up any counter-claim if so advised. The fact that the counter-claim has not been set up by the defendant does not entitle the petitioner to seek striking off para-2 of the written statement. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. 11.12.2009 (SABINA) shamsher Judge