C.R. No. 461 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 461 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 28, 2009 Satbir Singh .. Petitioner v. Jaivir Singh .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 15.11.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 10,82,500/- along with interest under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure. After the evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was complete and number of opportunities have been availed of by the petitioner-defendant, application for amendment of the written statement was filed which was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that law on amendment of written statement is quite liberal and even the legal ground that the same is filed at a belated stage is also not fatal for allowing the prayer for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner was only seeking to raise two issues in the amended written statement. The onus of proving the same would also be on the petitioner-defendant and accordingly, no prejudice as such will be caused to the respondent-plaintiff. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any substance in the present petition. The suit was filed way back on 20.11.2004 for recovery of Rs. 10,82,500/- from the petitioner-defendant. As is noticed from the impugned order, issues in the present case were framed on 26.9.2005. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff even closed his evidence. The application for amendment came to be filed on 16.11.2007 after the petitioner had availed of number of opportunities to lead his evidence. The amendment, which is sought to be made in the written statement with regard to the plea for non-joinder of necessary parties C.R. No. 461 of 2009 [2] and also the filing of earlier suit by the respondent-plaintiff, were still within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing of the written statement. However, the plea was sought to be raised quite belatedly for which I do not find any justification at this stage. Accordingly, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 28.1.2009 mk