Civil Revisions No. 6485, 6507 & 6509 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH 1- Civil Revision No. 6485 of 2011 Date of decision. 30.11.2011 Gurnam Singh .... Petitioner Versus M/s JCT Electronics Ltd. ...... Respondent 2- Civil Revision No. 6507 of 2011 Date of decision. 30.11.2011 Amrik Singh .... Petitioner Versus M/s JCT Electronics Ltd. ...... Respondent 3- Civil Revision No. 6509 of 2011 Date of decision. 30.11.2011 Sham Sunder .... Petitioner Versus M/s JCT Electronics Ltd. ...... Respondent -- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioners in all the three petitions. Civil Revisions No. 6485, 6507 & 6509 of 2011 --2-- Vijender Singh Malik, J. The three revision petitions, titled as above, have arisen on the same set of facts and are directed against the orders dated 20.09.2011, vide which the applications of the defendants, who are different persons in the three cases, for amendment of the written statement under the provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC have been dismissed. The facts necessary for disposal of the revision petitions are taken from CR No.6485 of 2011. The petitioner being an employee of the respondent company was allotted shared accommodation on 28.11.1988 at a monthly rent. The respondent company got two blocks of 168 houses from Punjab Housing Development Board, Chandigarh (for short 'PHDB, Chandigarh') in Phase- XI, SAS Nagar Mohali for the welfare of their employees under hire purchase agreement in the year 1987. The ownership rights of the said property remained with the PHDB, Chandigarh, under the terms of the aforesaid hire purchase agreement. The respondent company declared a temporary lock out on 14.3.2002 at Mohali plant. This led to a service dispute between the petitioner and other employees like him to whom the respondent company had allotted accommodation and that service dispute is pending before the Labour Court, Patiala. The respondent company has filed a suit for mandatory injunction against 3-4 employees seeking vacation of the allotted houses from them while the rest of the employees are still enjoying the said accommodation, though they are also not in service like the petitioner. Civil Revisions No. 6485, 6507 & 6509 of 2011 --3-- The petitioner sought amendment of his written statement by adding paragraphs no.6 to 9 to the already taken preliminary objections and also wanted to add certain additional pleas after para no.14 of the written statement. The same was declined by learned trial court vide the impugned order and the said order has been challenged by the petitioner by way of this revision petition. Learned trial court has dismissed the application for amendment primarily for the reason that the application for amendment has been made after commencement of the trial and the petitioner has failed to prove that he could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial inspite of due diligence. I have heard Mr. R.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all the three petitions, and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner came to know of the facts now sought to be added by way of amendment to the written statement only when the witness of the plaintiff appeared in the witness box and filed affidavit for his examination-in-chief. According to him, amendment of written statement stands at a different footing than the amendment of a plaint. He has submitted that the petitioner could not come to know of the facts sought to be added by way of amendment in the written statement inspite of due diligence before commencement of the trial. He has placed reliance on a decision of a Co- Civil Revisions No. 6485, 6507 & 6509 of 2011 --4-- ordinate Bench of this court in Sahib Singh and another v. Kuldeep Kumar and others 2011(1) Civil Court Cases 461 (P&H) where it is laid down that law relating to amendment of written statement is liberal and delay in filing the application for amendment is no ground to disallow it. It is also laid down in this case that commencement of trial means examination of witness, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. He has also cited before me a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar and another 2010 (1) Civil Court Cases 446 (SC) where it is held that the courts are more liberal in allowing an amendment of a written statement than that of a plaint. It is further held that addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can also be allowed. The expression “commencement of trial” was also considered in this case and as issues were not framed in the case, it was held that the trial had not commenced and the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was not applicable. It is a case where the issues were framed by learned trial court on 18.4.2006 and the case was adjourned for evidence of the plaintiff. On 10.09.2007 affidavit of one witness of the plaintiff was tendered and the case was adjourned for cross-examination of that witness. The defendant (petitioner) did not cross-examine that witness for three dates and when costs were imposed upon him for non-examining the witness, the present application has been filed on the next date in place of cross-examining the witness. When statement of one witness after framing of the issues had Civil Revisions No. 6485, 6507 & 6509 of 2011 --5-- been recorded in examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, it would definitely amount to commencement of trial. If the amendment is sought before commencement of trial, the same does not have to satisfy the requirements of the proviso appended to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and in that event the considerations for amendment of plaint and written statement would be different. Here the trial has commenced and, therefore, to overcome the bar contained in the proviso, the application for amendment of written statement or plaint would have to pass the test of satisfying the court that the pleas sought to be raised could not be raised before commencement of the trial inspite of due diligence. Amendment sought is not of a para or two. Three paragraphs as preliminary objections and seven paragraphs by way of additional pleas are sought to be added. Nothing appears on the record to show that the petitioner to whom the house was allotted did not know of the terms of the agreement between the respondent company and the PHDB, Chandigarh. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial court has been wrong in assuming that the petitioner knew about the facts sought to be pleaded by way of the amendment before commencement of the trial. Therefore, the decisions cited above have no application to the facts of the instant case. In these circumstances, learned trial court is justified in declining the prayer of the defendants for amendment of their written statements. Consequently, I find no merit in the revision petitions and dismiss the same. 30.11.2011 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE