CR No. 1003 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CR No. 1003 of 2009 Date of decision February 26, 2009 Surjit Singh ....... Petitioner Versus Parshotam Dass ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Ms. G. K. Turka, Advocate for the petitioner . **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The revision is against the order of the trial Court dismissing an application for amendment of the written statement. The written statement was sought to be amended after the plaintiff was cross examined and the defendant had tendered his evidence and he was also cross examined. It was at the stage of rebuttal evidence and arguments that the defendant had thought about amending the written statement already filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank Vs. Indian Bank and another 2003 (2) RCR (Civil) 668 where the Court has held that Courts shall normally be liberal while allowing applications for amendment of the written statement unless there was a bar of limitation, the pleadings shall normally be permitted to be amended. I am afraid that the decision CR No. 1003 of 2009 2 referred to by the learned counsel does not help the petitioner in any way. This decision refers to the principle that has to be normally followed but in this case the trial Court adverted to the fact that the facts which are now sought to be introduced were already available and known to the petitioner and sought to be introduced, especially after evidence of the defendant had been tendered under the circumstances. The additional pleadings could not be brought by means of an amendment. While evidence will always follow to conform to the pleadings, the reverse shall not be true, evidence cannot first be led in on matters not pleaded and subsequently an attempt made to introduce pleadings to conform to evidence. The dismissal of the application by the Court below is justified and there is no scope for intervention in the revision. 3. The revision petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 26, 2009 archana