IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8096 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 13, 2010 Kuljeet Singh. …Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala and others. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Parminderjeet Singh Khurana, Advocate, for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 08.09.2010 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, thereby allowing the application moved by the plaintiff-bank for incorporating amendment in the plaint. The brief facts of the present case, inter-alia, are that initially, plaintiff-respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,50,806.86 along with cost of the suit and pendente-lite interest at the contractual rate of 8.25% per annum. Plaintiff has also sought preliminary mortgage decree C.R. No.8096 of 2010 under Order 34 Rule 4 C.P.C. for the recovery of the said amount. The suit was filed on 17.03.2007. Thereafter, plaintiff-Bank moved an application seeking amendment in the plaint contending therein that property of the defendant-petitioner herein, for recovery of the debt, was sold under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in 2006. It is further contended in the application that after selling the property of the defendant, Rs. 1,60,000/- plus interest is still outstanding against the defendant, hence, plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint incorporating therein a fact of auctioning property and recovery of substantial amount of debt and still outstanding amount of Rs.1,60,000/- plus interest. Application was allowed by the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the provision of C.P.C., amendment ought not to have been permitted after the commencement of the trial. In the opinion of this Court, ordinarily, party seeking amendment to incorporate new plea must prove that despite of due diligence why plea sought to be taken by way of amendment could not be taken at the initial stage. In the present case, auctioning of the property of the defendant/petitioner herein is not in dispute. In the opinion of this Court, even if plaintiff is not permitted to amend the 2 C.R. No.8096 of 2010 plaint as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it will make no difference. If ultimately, Court finds, after the trial, that before filing of the suit, substantial amount of the debt has already been recovered and outstanding amount is different from the claim made in the plaint, Court shall be at liberty to pass the decree for the outstanding amount found to be due against the defendant. In view of this, in the opinion of this Court, no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioner even if amendment is allowed to be carried out. Dismissed. December 13, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 3