C. R. No. 1911 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1911 of 2010 Date of Decision : March 22, 2010 Om Parkash and others .... Petitioners Vs. Prem Parkash and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Plaintiffs have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 26.02.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridabad, thereby dismissing petitioners' application for amendment of plaint. The plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they are owners in possession of the suit land and revenue entries, depicting predecessor of the defendants to be mortgagee of the suit land, are wrong and are liable to be corrected. By way of amendment, the plaintiffs want to plead that if the suit land is found to be under mortgage with the defendants, then in that event, the plaintiffs are entitled to redeem the mortgage on payment of such amount, as may be found payable. The plaintiffs also want to add C. R. No. 1911 of 2010 2 alternative prayer to the same effect. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. The amendment application was moved by the plaintiffs after both parties had led their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any and for final arguments. The amendment application has been disallowed because no amendment could be allowed after commencement of trial in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC). Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners do not want to plead any new fact and do not want to lead any new evidence and therefore, proposed amendment should be allowed. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is reproduced here under :- “The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties. Provided that no application for amendment 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.” A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that proposed amendment cannot be allowed because amendment application was moved long after the commencement of the trial as the application was moved at the stage of final arguments. It is also not the case of the petitioners that C. R. No. 1911 of 2010 3 they could not seek the proposed amendment before commencement of the trial in spite of due diligence. In fact, in the suit, the plaintiffs challenged the revenue entry regarding mortgage of the suit land in favour of defendants' predecessor. In spite thereof, the plaintiffs did not take the plea, which they now seek to take by amendment. If the plaintiffs had exercised due diligence or prudence expected of an ordinary person, they would have taken the plea, sought to be taken by amendment, in the original plaint itself or before commencement of trial i.e. after the defendants in their written statement had pleaded the factum of mortgage of the suit land in favour of their predecessor. However, the plaintiffs remained silent throughout the trial and moved the amendment application at the stage of final arguments. The trial court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment of plaint in view of mandatory provision of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. For the reasons recorded herein above, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. March 22, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE