CR No.6573 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6573 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 12.11.2009 **** Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Haryana . . . . Petitioner VS. Gurukul Indra Prastha Praband Samiti . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Arvind Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the defendant against the order dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the learned Civil Court, Faridabad, whereby, application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, filed by the defendant has been dismissed. (2). Learned Civil Court observed that the trial has already commenced and in view of the amended provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the written statement at this belated stage, as it would prolong the final decision of the Civil Suit to be given in a time-bound manner as already directed by this Court vide order dated 25.08.2009 passed in Civil Revision No.1333 of 2005. CR No.6573 of 2009 - 2 - (3). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the proposed amendments as have been reproduced in the Grounds of Revision. It is urged that the amendment sought by the petitioners are only clarificatory in nature. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that no interference with the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, is called for. (5). Since the petitioner has already taken a specific stand in the written statement, it can lead its evidence in support of that plea for which no amendment in the written statement is required, inasmuch as the petitioner need not to plead the evidence in the written statement, however, in the interest of justice, the trial Court may grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to conclude its evidence. (6). Disposed of. (7). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 12.11.2009 vishal shonkar