C.R No.4780 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R No.4780 of 2009 Date of Decision: 27.01.2010. Smt. Kailash Chopra .……Petitioner Versus Hukam Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Ms. Ritu Punj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 7. None for respondent Nos.11 to 13. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Respondent Nos.8 and 9 have refused to accept the notice. None has put in appearance for them. Notices of respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been received back served or otherwise. Respondent No.10 also remains unserved. Learned counsel for the parties pointed out that only respondents No.3 to 7, who have already put in appearance, are the contesting respondents. Accordingly, service of unserved respondents for the purpose of this revision petition is dispensed with. Plaintiff Kailash Chopra has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 09.05.2009 (Annexure P-12) passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-10) moved by the petitioner for amendment of plaint. C.R No.4780 of 2009 -2- The plaintiff has filed suit challenging judgment and decree dated 14.06.1993 and also sale deed dated 24.09.1993 and consequent mutation No.5335 (wrongly mentioned as 4335 in the amendment application) sanctioned on the basis of said sale deed. It is alleged in the amendment application (Annexure P-10) that subsequently, the Revenue Authorities had cancelled mutation No.5335 and sanctioned fresh mutation No.5516 implementing decree dated 14.06.1993 and mutation No.5517 regarding the aforesaid sale deed dated 24.09.1993. It is also alleged in the amendment application that these corrections/changes in the revenue record have been made during the pendency of the suit, necessitating the proposed amendment to challenge mutations No.5516 and 5517 instead of mutation No.5335. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff on 26.07.1996. Amendment application (Annexure P-10) is dated 28.07.2008. The amendment application was thus moved 12 years after the filing of the suit. Admittedly, it was moved after some evidence of the plaintiff had already been recorded. In other words, the amendment application has been moved after commencement of the trial. However, according to proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C) as introduced by Amendment Act, 2002, no application for amendment shall be allowed if the trial has commenced unless the Court comes to the conclusion that inspite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. In the instant case, amendment application C.R No.4780 of 2009 -3- has been moved after commencement of trial and, therefore, could not have been allowed. It has not been alleged by the plaintiff- petitioner in the amendment application that inspite of due diligence, she could not have raised this matter before the commencement of trial. On the other hand, to overcome the statutory obstacle of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C, the plaintiff-petitioner made a factually incorrect averment in the amendment application that the aforesaid correction/changes (by way of mutation Nos.5516 and 5517) have been made during the pendency of the suit. However, perusal of the impugned order reveals that mutation Nos.5516 and 5517 had been sanctioned on 18.04.1994 i.e more than two years before the suit was filed on 26.07.1996. In view of factually incorrect averment made in the amendment application, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to make the proposed amendment for this added reason as well. On the other hand, the amendment application was filed 12 years after the filing of the suit for which no explanation is given. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Singh and another versus Daulat Singh (dead) by LRs and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2719 and State of H.P. Versus Keshav Ram and others, AIR 1997 Supreme Court 2181. However, these judgments do not relate to the question of amendment of pleadings, but relate to the value of entries in revenue records. Consequently, these judgments have no relevance for adjudication of the question involved in the instant revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on five C.R No.4780 of 2009 -4- other judgments namely Gian Parkash Sood versus M/s Brij Lal Tilak Raj and others, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 752, Usha Devi versus Rijwan Ahamd and others, 2008 (1) RCR (Civil) 840, Kuljit Singh versus Sukhdev Singh and others, 2009 (3) RCR (Civil) 751, Prithi Pal Singh and another versus Amrik Singh and another, 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 347 (P & H) and Surinder Kumar Sharma versus Makhan Singh, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 597. However, in none of these judgments, it was laid down that after introduction of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C as noticed hereinabove, amendment of pleading can be allowed even after commencement of trial. So these judgments did not help the petitioner in the instant case. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The amendment application has been disallowed for valid reasons. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 27.01.2010 A. Kaundal