Civil Revision No.220 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.220 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.03.2009 Raj Kumar .............Petitioner Vs. Kartar Singh and others ............Respondents Present: Mr. G.S. Toor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Brar, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The revision is filed against the order dismissing an application for amendment contained in the replication. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in a suit for enforcement of a promissory note, the defence was one of denial of the execution and a contention had been raised by the defendant that the signatures on blank stamp papers had been used up for filing up recitals of a promissory note. The plaintiff while giving his replication has stated in paragraph 3 as follows:- “That para No.3 of the written statement is wrong hence denied and that of the plaint is correct. It is correct that plaintiff ever obtained the thumb impression of the defendants on blank forms containing revenue stamps as alleged in the para of written statement (underlining mine). Civil Revision No.220 of 2009 (O&M) -2- It is also incorrect that the plaintiff has any other blank promote and receipt bearing the thumb impressions of defendants. It is incorrect that plaintiff got filed any suit from Mandip Singh S/o Avtar Singh r/o Bathinda against the defendants in this Hon'ble Court.” 3. From a reading of the reply, it is very clear that the plaintiff was only trying to deny the contentions raised by the respondent and the expressions used in the replication that "it was correct that the plaintiff ever obtained the thumb impression" must only be read as "it is incorrect that the plaintiff has ever obtained thumb impression." This inference is possible from a reading of the entire reply where he has denied the contentions raised by the defendant in the written statement. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the trial is at the fag end and the amendment to the reply was sought more than 7 years after the institution of the suit. 5. The dismissal of the application for amendment, in my view, does not accord with justice and it will needlessly give occasion for a party to contend against the general fabric of the pleadings. The revision is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the respondent on or before 31.03.2009, failing which the order of the Court below shall stand confirmed. 6. The revision petition is allowed in the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 04, 2009 Pankaj*