IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2383 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 01, 2008 Swaran Singh ....Petitioner Versus Kewal Krishan .....Respondent CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate T.P.S. MANN, J. Order passed by Additional District Judge, Faridkot on an application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. preferred by the petitioner has been challenged by him by filing the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Vide impugned order, learned Court below declined the prayer for amendment of the written statement as sought for by the petitioner during the pendency of his appeal, which appeal had been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.9.2007 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot. Suit for recovery filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial Court for an amount of Rs. 7,62,125/- along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 9% per annum and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum Civil Revision No. 2383 of 2008 -2- on the principal loan amount. Aggrieved of the same, the defendant- petitioner filed an appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, he filed an application for amendment of his written statement so as to take up a preliminary objection that the plaintiff-respondent was a money-lender and doing the business of money lending without obtaining money-lender's licence. He also wanted to amend para 1 of his written statement so as to add material regarding visiting the commission agency shop of the plaintiff- respondent for selling his produce and dealing with him till 2003-04 and when he stopped visiting the shop of the plaintiff on account of some dispute, the plaintiff fabricated the pronote and receipt dated 5.5.2004 in connivance with the attesting witnesses as well as the scribe as he had already obtained his signatures on some blank pronote/printed form from him by way of mis-representation and fraud and taking benefit of his illiteracy. According to him, he could not take the aforementioned pleas in his written statement despite exercise of due diligence at the time of its filing before the trial Court. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff-respondent has already admitted that he had filed some cases with regard to pronote and that he was not having money lender's licence. Once he had admitted the fact that he did not possess any money-lender's licence, the prayer on behalf of the defendant-petitioner for amendment of his written statement by taking preliminary objections in that regard cannot be granted. As regards the plea of the petitioner for adding more averments in his written statement regarding the alleged fabrication of the Civil Revision No. 2383 of 2008 -3- pronote and receipt by the plaintiff-respondent on some blank pronote/printed form which he had earlier got signed from the defendant under some mis-representation and fraud and taking benefit of his illiteracy, such a plea cannot be taken at a late stage and, that too, when the matter is pending in appeal. There is no material available on the file that despite exercise of due diligence, the defendant was not aware of these facts at the time when he filed the written statement before the trial Court. The impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The revision is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed. ( T.P.S. MANN ) December 01, 2008 JUDGE satish