CR No.4783/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4783/2011 Date of decision: 09.08.2011 Jagsir Singh and another ....................Petitioners v. Swaranjit Kaur and others .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.LS Sidhu,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Petitioners/driver and owner of the offending vehicle have filed the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the order dated 1.6.2011 (P16) passed by learned MACT Mansa, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the reply, has been dismissed. It is apparent that respondents 1 to 4/claimants/dependants of deceased Gurmeet Singh filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 alleging therein that on the intervening night of 27/28.5.2009, the offending vehicle-a Canter driven by petitioner no.1 and owned by petitioner no.2 collided with car bearing registration no. DL-4CE-7238 resulting in the death of occupants of the car namely CR No.4783/2011 2 aforesaid Gurmeet Singh and one Mahan Singh. In reply thereto, the petitioners categorically denied the involvement of the offending Canter in the alleged accident. After the framing of issues and conclusion of evidence by both sides, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to take an altogether different stand saying that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver-Mahan Singh. Notice of the application was given to the claimants, who contested the same. After hearing both sides, the learned MACT, Mansa vide impugned order P-16 dismissed the application for amendment of the written statement. While doing so it was observed by the learned Tribunal that it cannot be said that the plea regarding negligent driving of the car was not known to the applicants/petitioners before the commencement of trial and that they should have raised this plea before the commencement of the trial. It was further found by the learned Tribunal that no reason has been ascribed in the application nor any explanation furnished on behalf of the applicants as to why the plea now sought to be incorporated by way of amendment of written statement was not raised before the commencement of the trial when the same was well within their knowledge. I am in agreement with the observation of the learned Tribunal that moving of application for amendment, when the evidence is over and the case is fixed for arguments, has been done with malicious intention just to delay the proceedings. CR No.4783/2011 3 At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 09.08.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge