CLR No. 29 of 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. I.P. Kohli, the learned counsel for the revisionist. An amendment application was filed by the owner of the vehicle to amend his written statement which was allowed by the trial court. The revisionist who is the Insurance Company/defendant, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present revision alleging that the said amendment application could not be allowed after the evidence was closed. In the opinion of the court, the trial court was justified in allowing the amendment application. It is settled law that the parties should be allowed to take such grounds as permissible. In the present case, the court finds that the owner of the vehicle has taken a stand that his vehicle was going for repairs which application has been allowed. It is for the respective parties to prove their stand on the amendment so allowed. The defendant could lead his evidence that his vehicle was taken for repairs and the plaintiff could rebut such fact being brought on record. This court does not find any error in the impugned order. The revision is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 16.09.2010 Shiv