Civil Revision No. 1248 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … Civil Revision No. 1248 of 2010 Date of decision: September 21,2010 Anjali Sharma d/o Shri Rajinder Sharma Petitioner. Versus Pushpa Sharma w/o Shri K.D.Sharma Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate for respondent ... Vinod K.Sharma,J(Oral) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 18.2.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Ambala City vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement stands dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession being owner of property in dispute against the petitioner who is the daughter in law of the plaintiff. After the trial had commenced, the petitioner moved an application for amendment of the written statement to plead that the property in dispute was purchased by the respondent-plaintiff with the money provided by her husband and that the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent is benami transaction. The money was said to have been provided by the husband of the petitioner by taking loan from HDFC Civil Revision No. 1248 of 2010 2 Bank. It is well settled law that after coming into force of the Benami Transactions(Prohibition) Act, no plea of benami transaction is availabe to the petitioner or defendant. The trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the amendment now sought was within the knowledge of the petitioner when the written statement was filed and therefore, in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C, no amendment of pleadings could be allowed after the commencement of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andhra Bank Versus ABN Amro Bank N.V. and Ors. 2007(3) Civil Court Cases 722 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that in the case of amendment of the written statement, delay could not be a ground to refuse prayer for amendment. The reliance is totally mis-conceivement as the amendment application of the petitioner has not been dismissed on the ground of delay but because of bar under proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Versus Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. 2007(2) Civil Court Cases 785 (S.C.) to contend that in the case of written statement, the courts are more liberal in allowing the amendment than in plaint as the question of prejudice would be far less in the former than in the latter case. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case was further pleased to hold that the court can allow amendment of pleadings at any stage of the proceedings if such amendment is necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties. In this case, again it was not the question Civil Revision No. 1248 of 2010 3 whether amendment of pleadings could be allowed after commencement of trial. Even otherwise, the amendment sought could not be said to be necessary for determination of lis raised in the suit, as the plea will not be available to petitioner in view of bar under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act. No merit. Dismissed. September 21,2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) nk JUDGE