IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.2776 of 2009 Date of Decision: 8.10.2010 Bhinder Steel Industries and others. ....... Petitioners through R.K.Handa, Advocate. Versus Smt.Sainder Kaur and others. ....... Respondent no.1 through Shri Amit Rawal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 17.2.2009 whereby the amendment sought by the petitioner to his written statement has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the amendment which has been sought, is essential to the facts of the case and denial thereof is contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court and various High Courts that the law of amendment of pleadings has to be construed liberally and that amendment to the written statement is on different pedestal than that of the amendment in the plaint. He placed reliance on Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal & Ors. Versus K.K.Modi & Ors., 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 577 (S.C.); Baldev Singh & Ors. Versus Manohar Singh & Anr. Etc., 2006(3) Civil Court Cases 573 (S.C.); State Bank of Hyderabad Versus Town Municipal C.R.No.2776 of 2009 -2- .... Council, 2007(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 415 (S.C.); Surender Kumar Sharma Versus Makhan Singh, 2010(1) P.L.R. 231 (S.C.); and Smt.Kala Wati Versus Ram Piari & Ors., 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 9 (P&H). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 laid much emphasis on the facts of the case. He stated that respondent no.1 herein stood as guarantor to the loan arrangement between Syndicate Bank and the present petitioners. While doing so, she had mortgaged her residential house. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who are loanees, defaulted in repaying the loan amount, which resulted in the filing of a suit by the bank against the petitioners, as also respondent no.1, who was guarantor. The loanees, who were arrayed as defendants in the said suit, defaulted in appearance and they were proceeded against ex parte, thus, paving the way for a decree to be born against respondent no.1 as well. The bank then started proceedings to recover the amount from respondent no.1 by way of execution and her property was threatened to be sold in those proceedings. Respondent no.1 thereafter repaid the entire decretal amount in order to salvage her property from the bank. The instant suit has been filed by respondent no.1 to recover the amount from the present petitioners as they were loanees and for the reason that she had satisfied the loan amount by repaying the same to the bank. The petitioners filed their written statement on 6.5.1997. Therein, while replying to the averments made in the plaint, especially in paragraph no.1 wherein it was alleged by the plaintiff-respondent no.1 that Bhinder Steel Industries was a partnership firm, it was stated that it was a C.R.No.2776 of 2009 -3- .... matter of record. By way of the instant application, the petitioners have sought to incorporate the pleas which have been noticed in the impugned order. If the amendment which is sought by the petitioners is to be seen, then the same have no relevance with the factors pleaded by them. The suit filed by respondent no.1 is a suit for recovery simpliciter and the fact that the instant application has been moved belatedly which is also a fact which has rightly been appreciated by the trial Court, for the reason that these facts were known to the petitioners at the filing of the written statement in the year 1997 and this fact cannot be wished away by merely saying that the amendment can be sought at any point of time. The Court necessarily has to see with reference to the facts of the case as to whether the amendment which has been sought is a ploy to delay the proceedings or is necessary for proper adjudication of the matter. The existence of a partnership deed, or the firm being a proprietorship firm, was a crucial fact which could not have evaded the notice of the petitioners at the time when they filed written statement. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the exercise to amend the written statement is ostensibly a mechanism to defeat the process of law by generating delay to the advantage of the petitioners, more-so when they are facing recovery proceedings. I do not, thus, find any ground to interfere. Dismissed. October 08,2010 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge