IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2965 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 23, 2008 Harbans Lal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab etc. .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Palvinder Singh, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. G.P.S. Bal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 7. T.P.S. MANN, J. The petitioner had filed a suit for declaration on 1.12.1999. The respondents filed their written statements. After the completion of the pleadings, the trial Court proceeded to consolidate a couple of suits as well as the present suit and framed the issues. On 1.11.2007, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. for the amendment of his plaint, which application has been declined by the trial Court on 11.3.2008 as being not maintainable at that stage. While holding so, learned trial Civil Revision No. 2965 of 2008 -2- Court relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajendraprasadji N. Pande and Anr. v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and Ors., 2007(1) Apex Court Judgements 376 : AIR 2007 Supreme Court 806, wherein it was held that the amendment would not be allowed after the trial had commenced unless inspite of exercise of due deligence the matter could not be raised before the commencement of the trial. It has already been held by this Court in Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal v. Shanti Lal, 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 452 that the amended provisions brought into force by the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 2002 did not operate retrospectively and would not affect the pending cases. Only the unamended provisions would apply to the pending proceedings. As mentioned above, learned trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of his plaint primarily on the ground that the trial of the case had commenced when issues were settled and the case set down for recording of the evidence. These observations of the trial Court cannot be allowed to stand in view of the decision of this Court in case of Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal (supra) as in the year 1999 there was no requirement of law that amendment in the pleadings could only be permitted after the commencement of the trial in case the matter could not be raised earlier despite exercise of due diligence. Civil Revision No. 2965 of 2008 -3- Resultantly, the revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court to consider the application of the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 afresh in accordance with law. The trial Court shall hear and dispose of the application of the plaintiff under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 23, 2008 JUDGE satish