CMPMO 228 of 2008. 9.1.2009 Present: Sh. Ajay Kumar, counsel for the petitioners. Mr. G.D.Verma, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Romesh Verma, counsel for respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners who are the defendants are aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners defendants herein praying for amendment of written statement. The learned Court notes that after the plaintiffs closed their case for evidence, the defendants has moved this application for amendment and did not lead any evidence in the suit, though several opportunities had been granted. He holds that this is a deliberate attempt on the part of the defendants to delay proceedings. The reasons as stated for rejection are not such which cannot be sustained in law. However, I find that the defendants seek amendment to the written statement only to the effect that the suit is barred by the principles of resjudicata, as the matter has already been determined in a prior suit. In these circumstances, this petition -2- is allowed, the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The amendment is granted. Considering that the petitioners have been responsible for delaying the disposal of the suit, costs of Rs.4400/- are awarded to the respondents herein. Such costs shall be payable on the first date of appearance. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 6.3.2009. It is clarified that in case the costs are not paid as directed, the amendment shall be deemed to have been rejected. January 9, 2009(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.