Civil Revision No.4825 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4825 of 2011 Date of Decision:11.08.2011 Raj Kumar and another .....Petitioners Versus Gurcharan Singh .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jatinder Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J .(Oral) Concisely, the facts, which require to be noticed, for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, are that Gurcharan Singh son of Jeet Ram respondent-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit (Annexure P1) against Raj Kumar and Mohan Lal sons of Keshwa Nand petitioner-defendants (for short “the defendants”) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.5.2005, in respect of the land in dispute. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants moved an application (Annexure P3) for amendment of the written statement, under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, so as to include the fact that the plaintiff advanced a loan of ` 9 lacs on interest to the defendants on 16.5.2005 for purchase of land at village Bhatiwal Kalan. Subsequently, the plaintiff compelled them to make the payment, out of which, ` 6,50,000/- were stated to have been returned. The defendants were claimed to have never entered into the agreement to sell, which was prepared as a security of the loan. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the defendants sought to amend the written statement. Civil Revision No.4825 of 2011 -2- 3. The plaintiff contested the prayer for amendment of the written statement and filed the reply, in which, it was mentioned that he (plaintiff) has closed his evidence on 31.10.2008. It is only after availing 12/13 effective opportunities for leading their evidence that the defendants filed the present application mala fidely and in order to delay the disposal of the suit. It will not be out of place to mention here that the plaintiff has clearly denied all other allegations contained in the application for amendment and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of written statement with costs of ` 2000/-, by virtue of impugned order dated 18.7.2011. 5. The petitioner-defendants did not feel satisfied with the impugned order of the trial Court and filed the present revision petition, invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant revision petition in this context. 7. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the proposed amendment is essential to decide the case, so, the trial Court committed a legal mistake in dismissing the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of the written statement, lacks merit. 8. As is evident from the impugned order that there is already an elaborate reference of the facts in the original written statement, now sought to be incorporated by the defendants, by way of amendment of written statement. It is not a matter of dispute that plaintiff filed the suit (Annexure P1) for a decree of possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell dated 16.5.2005, executed by the defendants. In that eventuality, plaintiff would only succeed if he Civil Revision No.4825 of 2011 -3- proves the genuineness and validity of the agreement to sell, passing of consideration amount and not otherwise. To me, the real controversy can effectively be decided on the basis of already existing pleadings of the parties. 9. Moreover, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in declining the prayer of the defendants, by means of impugned order, which, in substance, is as under:- “A perusal of the file reveals that there is already an elaborate reference of the facts now sought to be incorporated by way of amended written statement. There is nothing on the file to show that the defendants have recently become aware about the facts now sought to be incorporated. Rather, the plaintiff has concluded his evidence way back on 31.10.2008. It is only after availing 12/13 effective opportunities for leading their evidence that the defendants have filed the present application on the date fixed as last opportunity for their evidence. As per Proviso clause order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment of pleadings shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has prima facie failed to establish that despite due diligence they could not have brought forth the proposed amendments in the plaint. As discussed above in detail, the proposed amendment are more or less in the form of elaboration of the original pleadings. The change of counsel is no ground for amendment of pleadings. In no way, the plaintiff's case for amendment of the plaint is covered U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC. Rather it is hit by the proviso clause. In view of the above discussion, the application is dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/-. The defendants are directed to deposit Rs.1000/- in legal aid funds and to pay Rs.1000/- to the plaintiff as costs.” 10. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons in dismissing the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of the written statement filed by the defendants, through the medium of impugned order. Such impugned order, containing valid reasons, cannot possibly be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil Revision No.4825 of 2011 -4- unless and until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 11 No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 12. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, since there is no merit, so, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such. 13. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect in any manner on the merits of the case as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding this revision petition. 11.8.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE