C.R. No.986 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.986 of 2010 Date of Decision: 16.02.2010 M/s Sainsons Paper Industries Pvt. Ltd. .……Petitioner Versus Gurdeep and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Defendant No.6 has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.01.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pehowa thereby dismissing application filed by the petitioner for amendment of written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. The original written statement was filed on 19.05.2005. Issues were framed on 16.01.2006. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 led his evidence. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of defendants on 05.05.2008. The defendants availed of some opportunities to lead their evidence. It was thereafter that amendment application dated 17.11.2008 (Annexure P-5) was moved seeking amendment of written statement. By way of amendment, defendant No.6 wants to add new facts running into several pages. Proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that no application for C.R. No.986 of 2010 -2- amendment of pleading shall be allowed after the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the instant case, the application for amendment was moved long after the commencement of the trial. There is not even a plea that the proposed amendment could not be raised before the commencement of trial inspite of due diligence. On the other hand, it is simply alleged in the application that while preparing the case, counsel realized that some important facts could not be mentioned in the written statement. This cannot be a ground to allow the proposed amendment long after the commencement of trial. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the proposed amendment could not be claimed before commencement of trial inspite of due diligence. On the other hand, by way of proposed amendment, the petitioner wants to fill up lacuna in its case which cannot be permitted. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the trial Court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 16.02.2010 A. Kaundal