1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 3206 of 2011. Date of Decision: 22.7.2011 *** Madhukar Kumria .. Petitioner VS. Mrs. Romila Suri & Ors. .. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Tarundeep S. Khaira, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement has been dismissed by the learned trial Court, leading to the institution of the present revision petition. Heard. Order VI Rule 17 CPC deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a 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. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is equally well settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs. The amendment so sought does not involve change of cause of action. The plaintiff and respondents No.1 and 2 who are sisters of the petitioner, filed the suit seeking injunction in respect of property left by 2 their father Late Sh. R.L. Kumria and claimed 1/5th share therein. While according to the petitioner-defendant, the suit property was not the self- acquired property of the deceased and was only purchased in his name and he (defendant) also made contribution towards the payment of the said property. The learned trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the trial has commenced and the facts sought to be incorporated in the written statement were well within the knowledge of the defendant and that the defendant has not pleaded that despite exercise of due diligence he could not get the aforesaid facts mentioned in the earlier written statement. I have gone through the application filed by the petitioner and contents thereof as well as the written statement filed earlier. The sum and substance of the amendment sought by the petitioner is similar to that of the stand taken by him in the written statement earlier and the proposed amendment is only in the form of explanation and does not change the nature of the defence taken by the defendant earlier. No doubt the perusal of the impugned order reveals that the trial has commenced, but in the light of the fact that the proposed amendment is merely an explanation to the earlier written statement and no prejudice is going to be caused to the plaintiff with the same, the application is ought to have been allowed by the Court below by compensating the plaintiffs. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the instant revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge, is quashed. The petitioner is allowed to amend the written statement as prayed for, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court. On his doing so, the learned trial Court shall take on record the amended written statement and thereafter proceed with the case in accordance with law. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE July 22,2011 Jiten