CR No.682 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.682 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 9, 2010. Rajinder Kaur ...Petitioner v. Rupinder Kumar ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri Jasbir Rattan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 15.12.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhuri whereby her prayer for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. As per the averments, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 10.4.2005 against the petitioner. In the written statement, the petitioner took the plea that there was no occasion for her to borrow such a huge amount nor the plaintiff- respondent was in a position to advance the aforesaid amount and on these pleadings, the parties went to trial. According to the petitioner, on 31.12.2008, FIR No.205 was registered against the plaintiff-respondent under Section 420 IPC on the basis of a complaint of one Smt. Amarjit Kaur widow of Kartar Singh and in CR No.682 of 2010 -: 2 :- the investigation of the aforesaid FIR, it was found that two pronotes which were taken by the plaintiff-respondent from petitioner as security were used by respondent fraudulently. Through this amendment, the petitioner had prayed for introduction of this plea in her written statement which came to her notice subsequently. However, the trial court has declined the prayer for amendment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the amendment sought is only explanatory and the petitioner was entitled to the amendment of the written statement. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh, (2010-1) PLR 231 to contend that the amendment can be allowed even if made at a belated stage and while allowing such amendment, the only question that needs to be decided is to see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties can be resolved. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. There is no dispute with the proposition of law as canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner. However, from the facts in hand, it is to be seen whether the amendment sought by the petitioner is necessary for just decision of the case. In the present case, the petitioner had sought amendment on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent got advanced Rs.2 lacs as loan from Amarjit Kaur on interest to the petitioner and the signatures of the petitioner were received on blank pronote and receipt as security. However, in the written statement, the petitioner had not taken any such plea that the pronote and receipt were got obtained by the plaintiff- CR No.682 of 2010 -: 3 :- respondent as security, rather in the pleadings, the petitioner has taken a specific stand that neither there was any necessity of taking such a loan by the petitioner nor the plaintiff-respondent was denying the capacity to advance such a huge amount. Thus, the petitioner by taking the aforesaid plea by way of amendment, wanted to take a new plea which is contradictory to the earlier plea taken. Moreover, the case is at the fag end as the parties have already led the evidence. Thus, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. February 9, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge