C.R. No. 5096 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 5096 of 2009 Date of Decision: September 7, 2009 Sucha Singh …..Petitioner Vs. Hukam Chand …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Defendant has filed this revision petition aggrieved by an order dated August 7, 2009 dismissing his application for amendment of written statement. The plaintiff- respondent has field a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.2.80 lacs on the basis of pronote and receipt. The defendant- petitioner has already taken up a plea in the written statement that the plaintiff and his sons had got the signatures of the defendant on the blank pronote on August 12,2000 by persuading the son of the defendant C.R. No. 5096 of 2009 [2] and the defendant. The circumstances have already been described in para 1 of the written statement on merits. By way of amendment the defendant seeks to add further plea that the Photostat copy of the blank pronote and blank receipt bearing signatures of the defendant were supplied to the defendant by Kishan Chand son of the plaintiff- respondent. Counsel for the defendant- petitioner has also brought to the notice of this Court, copy of the pronote which has been relied upon by the plaintiff- respondent and a photocopy of the same pronote showing the blank columns of the pronote and receipt. Counsel for the defendant- petitioner submits that the plea which is sought to be incorporated by way of amendment is explanatory in nature and that the defendant wants to explain as to how he came into the possession of the photocopy of the blank pronote and receipt. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the arguments. The trial Court while dismissing the application has observed that the defendant was aware of the plea which is sought to be incorporated even in the year 2003. On account of the delay in moving the application, the same has been dismissed by the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioner informs that the evidence of defendant is being produced before the trial Court and even defendant has also not been examined. The plea that the defendant was made to sign blank pronote already exists in the written statement. As to how the photocopy of the blank pronote came into the possession of the defendant is not required to be explained in the written statement. In case questioned, it C.R. No. 5096 of 2009 [3] will always be open to the defendant- petitioner to explain the circumstances as to how the blank pronote came into his possession. The amendment sought for does not appear to be incorporated. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application. It is also pertinent to observe here that the suit for recovery on the basis of pronote has been filed by the plaintiff in the year 2003. A period of approximately 7 years has elapsed but the trial has not been concluded. In view of this, no ground is made out for interference. Dismissed. September 7, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE