C.R.No.3507 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3507 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.10.2011 Hari Singh ...Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh (dead) through LRs ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. H.S.Saggu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jitender Singla, Advocate for the respondents. Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. The defendant-petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 27.4.2010 whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (In short, “the Code”) for amendment of the written statement filed on 16.7.2004 had been declined. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell the suit land dated 9.5.2002.The suit was contested by filing written statement on 16.7.2004. After filing the replication on 4.8.2004, the trial Court framed issues on 18.4.2005. After conclusion of evidence by both the parties, when the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendant on 18.2.2010, wherein the defendant had sought to incorporate in the written 1 C.R.No.3507 of 2010 statement as under:- “That previously the defendant had been obtaining loans from the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff vide writings the Photostat copies of which are mark A to G on the suit file had been giving the shape of agreements to sell the suit land and other land of the defendant in his own name and also in the name of his nephew Pushpinder Singh and after obtaining the loan back from the defendant, the same were never acted upon. As stated above, there were money dealings between the parties prior to the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.5.2002 in question. As such in case the execution of the alleged agreement to sell dated 9.5.2002 is proved then in that case it is at most a case of advancing money by the plaintiff to the defendant which has been given the shape of an agreement to sell the suit without any intention of getting the sale deed of the suit land.” 3. The trial Court declined the aforesaid amendment by holding that it was after the conclusion of the evidence by the defendant and without any explanation for not having filed the application at earlier stage, the same was not bonafide. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the plea which was sought to be taken by way of amendment was essential for just decision of the case and the trial court could not have rejected the application only on the ground that the same had been filed at a belated stage. Reliance was placed on Apex Court decision in Andhra Bank vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, 2007(6) SCC 167 and decision of this Court in Sagar Singh Slathia 2 C.R.No.3507 of 2010 v. Surinder Pal Singh, 2009(1) PLR 610, in support of his contentions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that the amendment at such a belated stage was not bonafide and relied upon Apex Court decision in Ajendraprasadji N.Pande and another v. Swami Keshavprakeshdasji N. and others, 2006(12) SCC 1 and decision of this Court in K.B.Sharma v. Shri Keerti Karan Dharni, 2010(2) RCR (Civil) 19. 7. After giving careful consideration to the respective contentions, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The trial Court while adjudicating the controversy had arrived at the conclusion that the suit had matured for arguments and the fact which was sought to be alleged by way of amendment was already in the knowledge of the applicant-defendant. It was further noticed that if due diligence had been exercised by the defendant, it could have been incorporated in the pleadings. It was also observed that no explanation had been given for not incorporating the same at the earlier stage. The relevant observations are as under:- “From the perusal of file, it is also noticed that issues on the basis of pleadings were framed on 18.8.2004. Applicant as well as respondent have already led their entire evidence. When the suit matured for arguments, then applicant moved the present application. Facts mentioned in the application were already in the knowledge of the applicant. He could have pleaded those facts in his written statement with due diligence but the applicant has not assigned any reason why the facts mentioned in the application were not pleaded in the written statement. Under the amended provisions of 3 C.R.No.3507 of 2010 section 6 Rule 17 CPC, no amendment can be allowed in the pleadings after framing of issues. In the present case, parties have already led their entire evidence. Proposed amendment is not material and necessary, rather it will cause delay in the disposal of suit. Position being so, the application under consideration is dismissed.” 8. No infirmity could be pointed out in the observations recorded by the trial Court. 9. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, the legal principles enunciated therein are well recognized but they do not advance the case of the petitioner as the same were on individual facts involved therein. 10. In view of the above, no merit is found in the revision petition and the same is dismissed. October 13, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge 4