Civil Revision No. 1486 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1486 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.03.2009. Inder Singh ....Petitioner Versus M/s Modi Traders, Commission Agent, New Grain Market, Nabha ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. H.P.S.Ghuman, Advocate, for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of indicated amount against the defendant-petitioner. The claim was based upon the Bahi entries. The plea was resisted by the defendant-petitioner herein on an averment that the plaintiff-respondent is a money lender. The defendant-petitioner filed a plea under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to obtain the leave of the Court to amend the written statement to aver, in course thereof, the details of four civil suits which had been filed by plaintiff-respondent against different individuals for recovery of the amount indicated therein. By the proposed amendment, the defendant-petitioner wants to raise a plea that he is a professional money lender who does not hold a money lender's licence. The proof of that fact would enable the defendant-petitioner to obtain dilution of the amount ultimately found to be payable. Civil Revision No. 1486 of 2009 -2- **** The learned Trial Court negatived the plea by observing that the suits filed by the plaintiff-respondent against different persons have no relevance to the present case and that the filing of the plea was aimed only delaying disposal of the suit which came to be instituted about 4-5 years ago, issues wherein were framed on 13.9.2005 and which is presently pending for the cross-examination of two witnesses of the plaintiff- respondent whose affidavits were tendered in the year 2007 and the matter is hanging fire since then for the purpose aforementioned. In the pleadings, the defendant-petitioner had already raised a plea that plaintiff-respondent is a money lender. Thus, it would be a mere surplusage if the defendant-petitioner were to be allowed to indicate the instances wherein certain amount had been lent by the plaintiff-respondent. When a plea has already been taken up by the defendant-petitioner that plaintiff-respondent is a money lender, the pleadings are not required to indicate the various instances. There is plethora of law on the point that pleadings are not required to contain the evidence in support thereof. Having said that on merits, it also requires pointed notice the the written statement by the defendant-petitioner came to be filed in the year 2005. Infact, the issues on the pleadings of the parties came to be framed on 13.9.2005. The affidavits of two witnesses (on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent) were tendered into evidence in the year 2007 and the matter is hanging fire for their cross-examination since then. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be faulted on any valid score. Dismissed in limine. March 18, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge