Civil Revision No.4632 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4632 of 2011 Date of Decision: 02.08.2011 Nishan Singh and another .....Petitioners Versus Gulab Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. M ehinder S ingh S ullar ,J. (Oral) The crux of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the present revision petition and emanating from the record is, that Gulab Singh s/o Kura Ram respondent No.1-plaintiff (for brevity “the plaintiff”) filed the suit (Annexure P-2) against Gurbachan Singh s/o Singara Singh (since deceased), now being represented by his LRs/sons Nishan Singh and Jarnail Singh-petitioners, daughters-Mohinder Kaur and Sukhwinder Kaur-proforma respondents No.2 and 3-defendants (for short “the original defendant”), for a decree of recovery of ` 5,30,000/- (` 4,00,000/- as principle amount and ` 1,30,000/- as interest), on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 04.04.2005. 2. During the course of pendency of the suit, the original defendant filed an application (Annexure P4) for amendment of the written-statement (Annexure P3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. 3. The plaintiff resisting the prayer for amendment of the written- statement of the defendant, filed the reply and stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal. 4. The trial Court dismissed the application (Annexure P4) of the defendant for amendment of the written-statement, by virtue of impugned order Civil Revision No.4632 of 2011 -2- dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P1). 5. Petitioners-legal representatives of original defendant did not feel satisfied with the impugned order and preferred the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendants, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present revision petition in this respect. 7. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proposed amendment in the written-statement is essential to decide the real controversy between the parties, sans merit. 8. As is evident from the record that the plaintiff filed the suit (Annexure P-2) for the recovery of ` 5,30,000/- against the original defendant, on the basis of pronote and receipt, as back as on 13.02.2007. The original defendant filed the written-statement, wherein, it was pleaded that he does not know the plaintiff. He never borrowed any amount from him. The plaintiff did not disclose the source from where he has arranged the money for paying amount to the defendant. He did not execute any pronote or receipt in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Now, by way of the proposed amendment, the original defendant intends to incorporate in the written-statement that the real brother of the plaintiff is running a business of commission agency. The defendant was his customer and used to sell his agricultural produce. Angrej Singh, brother of the plaintiff (commission agent) used to take the thumb impression of the plaintiff on the blank and printed papers, on the pretext of receipt for payment of the sale price. 10. Meaning thereby, the original defendant now wants to take a contradictory plea in this relevant connection. Moreover, the facts, now sought to be introduced, were very well in the knowledge of the original defendant from the very beginning and the question of not incorporating the same in the original Civil Revision No.4632 of 2011 -3- written-statement remains an unfolded mystry. 11. The original defendant appears to have filed the present application (Annexure P4) for amendment of the written-statement (Annexure P3), at this belated stage, only in order to delay the disposal of the suit. Moreover, the plaintiff will only succeed in his suit for recovery, if he will be able to prove the due execution of the pronote and receipt and passing of consideration amount. This real controversy can effectively be decided on the basis of already existing pleadings of the parties. 12. To me, the trial Court has recorded the valid reasons and rightly negatived the claim of the original defendant, by means of impugned order dated 19.07.2011 (Annexure P1). Such order, containing the valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court, as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, the impugned order is hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 13. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest, it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the suit, the instant revision petition filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such. 14. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect, in any manner, on the merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present revision petition only. 02.08.2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) AS JUDGE