C.R. No. 3537 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3537 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.7.2010 Bahadur Singh ........ Petitioner Versus Harpreet Singh ........ Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 14.3.2009 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned trial Court, whereby an application filed for the amendment of the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant was declined. The defendant-petitioner wishes to introduce certain new facts in the written statement. Learned trial Court had declined the amendment for the reasons that the plaintiff had already examined his three witnesses and the trial had already commenced. The learned trial Court also found that the plaintiff had denied the knowledge of any transaction sought to be pleaded by the defendant and, therefore, the amendment sought by the defendant cannot be permitted to be allowed. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned trial Court is not sustainable. Though the plaintiff has tendered the evidence of three witnesses, but admittedly none of the witnesses have been cross- C.R. No. 3537 of 2009 (O&M) -2- examined. At the time of consideration whether amendment should be allowed or not, the Court is not expected to examine the truthfulness of the averments made by the parties in pleadings. In addition thereto, learned counsel for the respondent prays that in the event amendment is allowed, the defendant-petitioner should be bound down in the matter of grant of opportunities for leading the evidence as the sole purpose of the defendant is to delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other. In view of the said facts, the order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. While allowing this revision petition and permitting the defendant-petitioner to amend the written statement, the petitioner is directed to lead his entire evidence in two opportunities. The defendant-petitioner shall file his affidavit in evidence within one week of the plaintiff closing his evidence. Thereafter, the Court shall gave two opportunities to the defendant-petitioner within two months on which dates the defendant-petitioner shall be bound to conclude his entire evidence. In that event if he fails to tender his evidence after the closing of the evidence of the plaintiff and fails to conclude his evidence in two opportunities, the evidence of the defendant shall be deemed closed. The revision petition stand disposed of in above terms. July 6, 2010 ( HEMANT GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE