Civil Revision No.4441 of 2011 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4441 of 2011 Date of decision: July 25, 2011. M/s Balu Ram Harnam Dass Steel Rolling Mills & Anr. ... Petitioners v. Balwinder Singh & Anr. ... Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia , J. Present revision petition has been filed by the defendants to the suit. They are aggrieved against the order dated 2.6.2011 passed by the trial court whereby it rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendants to amend the written statement. Respondent-plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner-defendants. When the respondent-plaintiffs had concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for evidence of the defendants, application for amendment of the written statement was filed. By way of amendment, present petitioners wanted to introduce the following para in the written statement:- “In the alternative it is submitted that in any case this Hon'ble Court on proof being given by the plaintiff comes to conclusion that the defendants purchased the material as detailed in the plaint and also gave cheque of Rs.1,00,000/- as part payment of Civil Revision No.4441 of 2011 -: 2 :- the amount allegedly due, it is submitted that the defendants sold old and used coupline (CI) weighing 5MT 785 Kg @ Rs.16,500/- per MT for an amount of Rs.95,453/- to the plaintiff vide invoice number RM-2 dated 1.2.2005. Copy of the bill is attached herewith. The defendants duly entered this transaction in account books, have furnished the same in the income tax department while submitting the return for the year 2005-06 along with the balance sheet after adjusting the account of the plaintiff in their account books as the amount was subject to adjustment, which has been accepted by the income tax department.” The respondent-plaintiffs filed reply to the application and stated that no material was purchased by them. False story has been concocted at the later stage only to delay the culmination of the suit. It was stated that plaintiff had closed his evidence and thereafter, defendants' evidence was closed by order on 8.3.2010. On 29.3.2010, an application was filed for leading additional evidence which was dismissed on 26.4.2010. In that application, no reference was made to the alleged bill dated 1.2.2005 which was sought to be brought to the notice of the court by way of the amendment. It was further pleaded that the proposed amendment will change the nature of the suit and will be contradictory. Furthermore, the case was pending for the last five and a half years. Three times costs were imposed upon the defendants by granting last opportunity to lead their evidence. When they led no evidence, their evidence was closed by order of the Court. Further averment was made in the reply to the application for amendment that in the written statement a definite stand was taken by the Civil Revision No.4441 of 2011 -: 3 :- petitioners that they had advanced Rs.1,00,000/- as loan to the plaintiff- respondents and now sale of goods is sought to be introduced. While rejecting the application for amendment, the trial court has observed as under:- “3. ... Perusal of the file shows that defendant in this case appeared on 23.5.2005 and after appearance, he has taken about 3 opportunities for filing written statement and ultimately filed written statement on 1.8.2005 and after that issues were framed. Plaintiff lead his entire evidence and plaintiff concluded his evidence on 10.10.2009 and case was fixed for defendant evidence on 21.10.2009 and since that date defendant has taken as many as about 9 opportunities for leading his evidence but no evidence has been lead by the defendant and ultimately the evidence of the defendant was closed by order vide order dated 8.3.2010. The fact regarding the purchase by the plaintiff from the defendant vide invoice number RM-2 dated 1.2.2005 was already within the knowledge of defendant and defendant appeared in this case on 23.05.05 and he could have taken this defence in written statement filed by him on 1.8.2005 which he has failed to do so. Even no evidence has been lead by defendant to prove his case. ... “ Shri Sanjiv Gupta, Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., 2007 (2) RCR (Civil) 830 to contend that the court is conferred with power, to allow alteration and amendments of the pleadings at any stage of the proceedings, if it is of the view that such amendments may be necessary for Civil Revision No.4441 of 2011 -: 4 :- determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Furthermore, it has been held in the judgment that the courts should be liberal in allowing the amendment of the written statement. There is no quarrel with the proposition propounded in the above said judgment, but where the defendant only wants to delay the culmination of the proceedings, the court will be hesitant to become a party to the tactics deployed by the party whose only motive is to cause delay. The conduct of the petitioner-defendants has been noticed by the trial court. Therefore, the learned trial court has rightly declined the application for amendment of the written statement. Furthermore, the proposed amendment is an afterthought and has only been sought to be introduced so that the suit is tried de novo. Plea sought to be brought by way of written statement was non-existent and was withheld even though there were numerous opportunities available with the petitioner-defendants to bring the same into light. No infirmity can be found with the well reasoned order passed by the trial court. Hence, no interference is warranted. The present revision petition is dismissed. [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia] July 25, 2011. Judge kadyan