Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.07.2009 Sarabjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation Jalandhar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Gauri Bedi, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, allowing an application moved by the defendant/respondents under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment to the written statement. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit claiming damages, on the averments that the property of the petitioner was illegally demolished by the Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2007 (O&M) -2- defendant/respondents on 4.9.2000. The plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,45,260/- (Rupees one lac forty five thousand two hundred sixty only) as damages for illegal demolition. Written statement to the plaint was filed by the defendant/respondents on 13.3.2002. On completion of the pleadings, issues were framed. Plaintiff/petitioner led evidence in support of his case. The defendant/respondent did not lead any evidence, in spite of availing number of opportunities, therefore, their evidence was ordered to be closed by order, and case fixed for arguments. The defendant/respondent choose not to challenge the order closing their evidence and allowed it to attain finality. When case was fixed for arguments, application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to amend the written statement, was filed, on the ground that the subsequent events, which had occurred during the pendency of the suit, were required to be pleaded. The subsequent event which were sought to be pleaded by way of amendment was, that in 2006 notices were again issued to the plaintiff/petitioner for demolishing the illegal construction, which, according to the defendant/respondents, were not complied with. The amendment was also sought, that the plaintiff/petitioner had sold the property during the pendency of the suit and finally, that the plaintiff had also filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendant/respondents from demolishing the property in pursuance to the notices issued to him, which was dismissed. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment, by taking a view that law for seeking amendment is very liberal, as held in the various Civil Revision No. 3510 of 2007 (O&M) -3- pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Courts. Reliance in support was placed on the judgment of this Court in Harbheg Singh and another Vs. Darshan Ram and others, 2001(1) Civil Court Cases 798, wherein this Court was pleased to lay down, that the law of amendment is very liberal and the amendment which was necessary for effective adjudication, should ordinarily be allowed, even at the appellate stage. On consideration, I find that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jalandhar, cannot be sustained in law. It is well settled law, that the parties cannot be allowed to fill in lacunae, left in the case by way of amendment. The judgment relied upon by the learned Civil Judge is also not applicable to the facts of the present case, as amendment sought could not be said to be necessary for effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The plaintiff claimed the damages for an act, which was done on 4.9.2000, therefore, the subsequent events, sought to be pleaded, could have no effect on the adjudication of the case. The application could not be said to be bona fide or necessary for effective adjudication of the lis between the parties. The amendment could not, therefore, be allowed at a belated stage, that too after the evidence of the defendant/respondents was closed by order. The attempt was surely to fill in lacuna, of having not led any evidence. For the reasons stated, revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the application moved by the defendant/respondents for amendment of written statement, is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 20, 2009 R.S.