C.R No.526 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.526 of 2011 Date of order: 25.1.2011 M/s Virender Traders Commission Agent and another ....Petitioners Versus Subhash Kaushal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J Present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Dasuya vide which an application of the defendants-petitioners for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. Brief facts are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a civil suit No.47 of 7.1.2004 for recovery of Rs.16,76,230/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till its realization against the defendants-petitioners. During the pendency of the civil suit, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendants- petitioners, who wanted to incorporate certain facts. Notice of the application was issued to the plaintiff-respondents, who opposed the same by filing reply and after hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court C.R No.526 of 2011 #2# dismissed the application vide the impugned order dated 29.11.2010. Hence, this petition. Heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners and perused the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that initially the defendants-petitioners had engaged Sh. H.S. Rahil, Advocate, through whom written statement was filed but during the pendency of the civil suit, said Sh. Rahil, died. Thereafter another counsel Sh. Puneet Bassi, Advocate was engaged on behalf of the defendant-petitioners and at this stage, defendant No.2-Birender Kumar had a chance to go through the written statement filed through Sh. H.S. Rahil, Advocate. It is only then he came to know that all the facts as instructed by the defendants to their earlier counsel were not incorporated in the written statement, as such the same are sought to be incorporated by way of the proposed amendment. It is further argued that the case is at the initial stage and no prejudice shall be caused to the opposite side. It is further argued that the learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application for amendment while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2010 and the same is liable to be set aside by this Court being wholly erroneous. A perusal of the paper book shows that issues in this case had already been framed and parties filed their respective affidavits for the purposes of examination in chief and the case is fixed for cross examination. It is not the ground of the defendants-petitioners that they were not aware of the facts, which are sought to be incorporated now by way of the proposed amendment in the written statement rather the blame is being shifted on the earlier counsel Sh. H.S. Rahil, who unfortunately had died. C.R No.526 of 2011 #3# It is not in dispute that written statement was prepared by Sh. Rahil at the instance of the defendants-petitioners and the present application for amendment is filed after a period of four and half years. The defendant-petitioners have failed to establish that they had exercised due diligence and thereafter the omission has occurred in the written statement. Learned trial Court, in my opinion, has rightly come to the conclusion that if the present application for amendment of written statement is allowed, that will lead to de novo trial. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, it seems that the application is just to prolong the matter at the instance of the defendants-petitioners as the suit is for recovery of considerable amount and the defendant-petitioners were not at all vigilant rather took the matter casually for the reasons best known to them. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this court does not find that the learned trial Court has committed any illegality or perversity while passing the impugned order dated 29.11.2010, which warrants any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. January 25, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE