Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2008 Date of decision: 29.01.2009 Gurjit Singh Dhaba ...Petitioner Versus Gurdev Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Taranjeet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for respondent no.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement dated 23.2.1993. In the course of the written statement, a plea was taken by defendant-respondent that the suit is not maintainable as “the property in dispute still vests with Improvement Trust, Ludhiana who has not executed any sale deed in favour of the defendant.” Qua the impugned agreement, the averment made was that “the plaintiff is guilty of changing/adding new terms in the agreement of sale dated 23.2.1993.” The evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner had already been concluded and part of evidence had also been adduced on behalf of the Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2008 -2- **** defendant-respondent, when the plaintiff-petitioner filed the impugned application (under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. and under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.) to obtain the leave of the Court to implead the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana as a party. Learned Trial Court negatived the plea by observing that the plaintiff-petitioner having already concluded his evidence and defendant- respondent also having led a part of the evidence, the former had not been able to explain why he could not have raised that plea earlier with due diligence. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff argues that allowance of the plea shall be in the interest of justice inasmuchas it shall enable the Court to dispose of the controversy at the trial completely and effactually. The proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. categorically provides that no application “for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to 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 suit was filed on 3.6.1994 and the written statement was filed on 26.11.1994. There was a preliminary objection, in the course thereof, to the effect that the suit was bad on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. The averment, made in the context, was that the title of the property in suit still vests in the Improvement Trust and that title therein had not been passed over to the defendant/respondent. Issues, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, were framed on 16.1.1995. The evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner concluded long ago. The impugned application came to be filed only on Civil Revision No. 2560 of 2008 -3- **** 3.1.2007. The defendant-respondent had adduced on record a part of the evidence. The plaintiff-petitioner did not at all make an endeavour to explain why the amendment plea could not be filed earlier particularly when the relevant plea had been taken in the written statement filed on 26.11.1994. The allowance of the plea would be plain violation of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. A similar view was obtained by the Apex Court in a judgment reported at Ajendraprasadji N. Pande & another Vs. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. & others 2007 (1) CCC 500 (SC) and this Court in judgment reported as Inder Pal Singh Vs. Bankey Bihari 2003 (3) CCC 707. In the light thereof, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. January 29, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge