C.R.No.2154 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.2154 of 2011 Date of decision: 5.5.2011 Mithan Singh ….Petitioner Vs. Rishi Prakash Chhikara and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant-petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for setting aside the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 (P.5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad vide which his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a civil suit No.73 dated 20.5.2006 for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell regarding the H.No.555 measuring 536 sq. yards, Sector 9, Faridabad for a sale consideration of Rs.56 lacs alleging that a sum of Rs.10 lacs was paid as earnest money to the defendant- petitioner on 30.11.2005. Upon notice, defendant-petitioner filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, an application dated nil (P.3) was filed for amendment of written statement, which was opposed by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 and after hearing both the sides, the same has been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad vide the impugned order, hence the present petition. C.R.No.2154 of 2011 #2# It is relevant to mention here that on the last date of hearing i.e 20.4.2011, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner despite granting adjournments on three occasions earlier. Today also, position remains the same and none is present for the petitioner. A perusal of paper book reveals that the suit was filed on 20.5.2006 and written statement was filed on 24.7.2006 by the defendant No.1-petitioner by admitting the factum of execution of agreement but submitted that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of agreement but now by way of the application dated nil (P.3), the said admission is sought to be withdrawn. On the pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed on 5.8.2008 by the learned trial Court and the case was fixed for evidence of the plaintiff when the present application had been moved by incorporating the proposed amendment in the written statement, which is not at all justified at such a belated stage. In view of the amendment of Civil Procedure Code w.e.f 1.7.2002, no application for amendment of pleadings after the commencement of trial can be entertained until and unless the court comes to the conclusion that the party is shown to have acted with due diligence. Moreover, none has been appearing in this case on behalf of the petitioner and thus it seems that petitioner is not even interested to pursue the matter. In the present case, there is nothing on record to substantiate that the defendant No.1-petitioner has shown any diligence much less to say due diligence in the matter pending since 20.5.2006 and the present application for amendment of written statement is just to prolong the litigation. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed C.R.No.2154 of 2011 #3# hereinabove, no illegality or perversity can be found with the impugned order dated 19.3.2010 (P.5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Faridabad warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. May 05, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE