C.R.No.5607 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.5607 of 2009 Decided on: December 17, 2009. Sumer Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS Jogender Singh .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Kulvir Narwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Defendant being aggrieved by the order dated 01.09.2009, dismissing his application for amendment of the written statement has preferred this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/-, against the defendant-petitioner on the basis of pronote and receipt in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Jhajjar, . . . 1 C.R.No.5607 of 2009 through proposed amendment in the written statement. The defendant seeks to incorporate the plea of fraud having been played upon him. The trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment on the ground that the amendment has been sought at a belated stage and that the written statement shall change the nature of the suit. The trial Court has relied upon the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, providing that after commencement of the trial no amendment could be allowed ignoring the fact that the suit in the present case had been filed on October 30, 2001, prior to the amendment of July 2002. The amended provisions of Civil Procedure Code will have prospective operation on the suits filed after amendment. Even if it is presumed that the amendment of 2002, can be permitted to have retrospective effect even then the plea of fraud which is sought to be raised in the amended written statement is claimed to be supported by certain documents pertaining to sale transaction of truck of defendant in favour of plaintiff allegedly recorded in the Register of Narinder Kumar Gupta Deed Writer, Jhajjar, appears to be necessary for the just decision of the case. In case the said amendment is allowed, the controversy between the parties will be settled once for all. Whether the entries in the register of Deed Writer, are authenticated or not cannot be opined, at this stage. No doubt the delay in filing of the application for amendment has caused prejudice to the plaintiff-respondent. In the interest of justice, the plaintiff deserves to be compensated for the amendment. . . . 2 C.R.No.5607 of 2009 The amendment is allowed subject to the payment of a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs, besides a sum of Rs.10,000/- to meet the litigation expenses in the High Court. A draft of sum of Rs.10,000/- has been handed over to the counsel for the respondent which has been accepted reluctantly by the counsel for the respondent. Further, it has been informed that the case is fixed for recording of the statements of the witnesses of defendant. In view of above discussion, the order dated 01.09.2009, is hereby set aside. The application of the defendant- respondent for amendment is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs, besides the costs of Rs.10,000/- which has been paid in the Court. It is made clear that in the garb of the amendment, the defendant will not be permitted to prolong the litigation. In case he requires to lead evidence to substantiate the amended plea in the written statement, he will produce the entire evidence within a period of two months by availing only three opportunities. No further opportunity will be granted beyond the said date. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16.01.2010. A sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs will be paid to the plaintiff-respondent. The trial Court will give three opportunities within a period of two months from the said date of hearing. In case any other date of hearing has already been fixed by the trial Court beyond 16.01.2010, then the trial Court will permit two opportunities w.e.f., the said date to produce the entire evidence in support of amended plea. . . . 3 C.R.No.5607 of 2009 It is made clear that in case sum of Rs.5,000/- is not paid on 16.01.2010, the present revision petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE December 17, 2009. rka . . . 4