Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2008 Date of decision: 05.08.2009 Jasbir Kaur ....Petitioner Versus Satwant Singh ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed to challenge the order dated 8.9.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement dated 18.1.2006. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent, that the defendant/petitioner failed to execute the sale deed and, therefore, the suit for specific performance was filed on 12.7.2006. The petitioner filed a written statement on 22.9.2006, wherein a plea was taken that he had not executed any such agreement, and that the agreement was outcome of fraud and mis-representation. Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2008 -2- On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed on 1.12.2006. The petitioner had also filed a complaint with the police against the agreement dated 18.1.2006, and FIR on his complaint was registered on 18.1.2007. After registration of the FIR, petitioner moved application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement, to implead the subsequent facts i.e. Registration of FIR against the plaintiff/respondent. He also wanted to amend the written statement to substantiate the allegation, that the transaction between the parties was that of loan transaction. In the written statement, plea was taken, that the husband of the petitioner was known to the son-in-law of the plaintiff/respondent, and they had some money transaction. In order to substantiate the said plea, the petitioner wanted to amend the written statement, pleading therein that a sum of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) advanced as loan, stood repaid. The learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground, that after the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is not open to the party to seek amendment of pleadings, after commencement of the trial. The second ground on which the application dismissed was, that application was an attempt to delay the proceedings. On consideration, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. The amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC do not bar the amendment of the pleadings, but only debar a party to seek amendment of a fact, which was within the knowledge of the party or which could be found with due diligence at the time of filing of the written statement. The factum of registration of FIR was not such, Civil Revision No. 5481 of 2008 -3- which could be known to the petitioner or could be found out with due diligence, to decline amendment application. However, the petitioner cannot be allowed to amend the written statement to plead that the amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) stood paid back, as this was certainly a fact which was within the knowledge of the petitioner, when the written statement was filed. After commencement of the trial, this fact could not be pleaded, by invoking provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The learned trial Court was, therefore, justified in declining this part of the amendment. For the reasons stated, this revision petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is partly set aside, and the application moved by the petitioner, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, is partly allowed by permitting the petitioner to implead the factum of registration of FIR. However, the plea of the petitioner to amend the pleading with respect to repayment of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only), is declined. Revision partly allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 05, 2009 R.S.