CR No. 4970 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4970 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.5.2009 Amar Singh .. Petitioner v. Greater Delhi Avas Vikas Society .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A. S. Syan, Advocate for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.8.2008, passed by the learned court below, whereby the application filed by the petitioner- defendant for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery against the petitioner-defendant, which was being contested by the petitioner. When the evidence of the petitioner was being led, certain factual errors were noticed in the written statement and application was filed seeking amendment thereof. The learned court below having rejected the same on the ground that it would result in de novo trial and if the amendment is allowed, the parties would seek time to lead evidence. The facts, which are now sought to be stated by the petitioner-defendant, were well within his knowledge. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the stand, which he had taken at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 16.9.2008 in the present petition to the effect that in case the proposed amendment is allowed, the petitioner will not lead any further evidence as his evidence is already going on. Further, it was submitted that the amendment, which is being sought, is only correction of a typographical/clerical error in the written statement. In paragraph 1 of the preliminary objection, it was stated that “certificate on form 37-I was also issued on 20.8.1998 in the name of the answering defendant.......”, whereas in fact certificate bearing No. 3302 was issued on 8.9.1998 on an application filed by the CR No. 4970 of 2008 [2] petitioner on 20.8.1998. Another part, which is sought to be amended in sub-para subsequent to the aforesaid paragraph where it was mentioned that “the answering defendant had issued a legal registered notice dated 10.9.1998”, whereas the fact was that the defendant had replied to the legal notice served by the respondent- plaintiff. The aforesaid amendment, if allowed, will not change the nature of the suit as it is only correction of dates, which is sought to be made and the same is as per record. It is only for the purpose that evidence being led may not be contrary to the dates/facts stated in the written statement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if the amendment is permitted to be allowed at this late stage in the written statement, which was filed way back in the year 2000, the same will result in de novo trial and the same will change the nature of the suit as well. Even otherwise, the facts, which are sought to be stated by the petitioner in the amended written statement, were well within his knowledge at the time of filing thereof. The application has rightly been rejected by the learned court below. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The kind of amendment, which is sought to be made in the written statement, as has been noticed above, will not change the nature of the suit, as is sought to be pleaded by learned counsel for the respondent. It is, in fact, a clerical error where at one place, the date of application of ITCC was mentioned as its date of issuance, whereas at another place, the date of reply sent by the petitioner-defendant to the legal notice served by the respondent-plaintiff was mentioned as the date of legal notice served by the respondent-plaintiff. As the stand of the petitioner-defendant is that he is not to lead any further evidence in pursuance to the amendment sought and he will complete his entire evidence on 25.7.2009, the date already fixed by the learned court, the impugned order passed by the learned court below is set aside and the petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement to the extent it is mentioned above. However, the same shall be payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the respondent-plaintiff. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 11.5.2009 mk