Civil Revision No. 4539 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 4539 of 2011 Date of Decision: 28.7.2011 Jasbir Singh …Petitioner Versus Joginder Kaur and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.K. Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 12.5.2011 (Annexure P1), passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby it dismissed the application, filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the plaint. The trial Court, vide its impugned order (Annexure P1), has dismissed the application by giving following reasons:- a) The suit was filed in the year 1999. b) The suit is fixed for arguments and the application has been filed only to delay culmination of proceedings of the case. c) This was the third application to amend the plaint. d) The plaintiff has closed his evidence on 26.3.2010. e) In the written statement, a definite stand was taken by the defendants that the land was mortgaged but no replication was filed by the plaintiff. f) The plaintiff had not bothered to obtain a copy of jamabandi for ten years. Civil Revision No. 4539 of 2011 2 Taking all the above circumstances into consideration, it was inferred that the petitioner filed the application as a tactic to delay the culmination of proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Surender Kumar Sharma v. Makhan Singh 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 078 (S.C.) to contend that the amendment of plaint on payment of costs can be allowed at belated stage also if same will decide the real controversy between the parties. The judgment cited above is not attracted to the facts of this case. This Court cannot become oblivious of the fact that this is a third attempt to seek amendment of the plaint as earlier two applications for amendment of the plaint were allowed. Furthermore, 11 long years have been consumed for the suit to become ripe for arguments. Lastly, these facts were in the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff for the last so many years. There was no explanation as to why the jamabandi, on the basis of which the proposed amendment is sought, was not collected by the petitioner/plaintiff for the last ten years. The trial Court has very validly held that the petitioner/plaintiff only wants to delay result of the suit. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition. Since the present petition has been filed to delay the culmination of the proceedings, the same is dismissed, in limine, with costs of `, 5000. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 28, 2011 “DK”