C.R. No.3216 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3216 of 2010 Date of Decision: 05.07.2010 Bhagwan Singh .……Petitioner Versus Ranbir Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-Bhagwan Singh has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 02.02.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh thereby allowing application for amendment of written statement filed by defendant-respondent No.1. Petitioner filed suit alleging that defendant No.1 for himself as well as for defendant Nos.2 to 6 entered into impugned agreement with the plaintiff and received Rs.3,30,000/- as earnest money. The defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the plaint allegations and alleged that all the alleged documents if any are false. It was also pleaded that defendant No.1 is in actual physical possession of the land of his share and has right to deal with the said share in any manner. Defendant No.1 moved application Annexure P-4 for amendment of the written statement to raise various preliminary objections and also to specifically plead that he never executed any C.R. No.3216 of 2010 -2- agreement and no payment as alleged was received by him. The plaintiff did not go to the office of Sub-Registrar with balance amount. Possession of the land was not transferred to the plaintiff. Some other pleas are also to be raised. It is also sought to be pleaded that defendant No.1 was not competent to enter into the agreement on behalf of defendant Nos.2 to 6. The aforesaid application has been allowed by the trial Court by way of impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C), proposed amendment of written statement could not be allowed long after commencement of the trial. The contention cannot be accepted because the said amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C is not applicable to the instant suit which had been instituted before coming into force of the said amended provision. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the amendment application was moved very belatedly. However, it is well-settled that amendment application (before coming into force of the amended provision of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C) could not be disallowed merely on the ground of delay. It has to be noticed that by proposed amendment, defendant No.1 is not taking any new plea contrary to what has been stated in the original written statement. On the other hand, defendant No.1 is only further elucidating his version. Even in the original written statement, defendant No.1 denied the version of the plaintiff. Now by amendment, defendant C.R. No.3216 of 2010 -3- No.1 is further denying the plaint allegations mere specifically. No prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff-petitioner by proposed amendment. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no illegality in the impugned order of the Trial Court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly found to be without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed in limine. 05.07.2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE