IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.1974/2009 Date of Decision:16.4.2009. Karamjit Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Sukhjinder Singh ..........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present: Mr. Parminder P.Sharma,Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral). This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure P3) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)Samana, dismissing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner-defendant for amending the written statement. Respondent-plaintiff Sukhjinder Singh instituted a suit for recovery against the petitioner-defendant on 29.11.2006. On the basis of pleadings of the parties issues were framed on 12.4.2007. Plaintiff closed his evidence on 21.1.2008. When the case was at the stage of defendant's evidence, petitioner- defendant moved an application dated 14.2.2008 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement to the following effect:- “The plaintiff is relative of the defendant. The defendant has his plinths and the PUNSUP is using CR NO.1974/2009 2 the said plinths on lease basis for a period of three years. The plaintiff, being relative of the defendant asked to increase the lease period and rate of the plinths, to which the defendant came under his influence and the plaintiff prepared a file for the same and obtained the signature of the defendant on certain blank paper, printed paper and typed papers which now he has used into the alleged pronote and receipt. Actually, the defendant never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff nor even executed pronote and receipt as alleged by the plaintiff, which is as such result of fraud and fabrication. The defendant reserves his right to prosecute the plaintiff by filing separate criminal complaint of cheating, fraud and forgery. This fact came into the notice of the defendant now when the defendant enquired from the PUNSUP and made enquiries regarding increase of lease period and rate of plinth's rent, who stated that there is no such agreement nor the rate of the plinths have been increased.” Respondent-plaintiff filed reply to the application denying the averments contained therein. It was stated that each and every facts were within the knowledge of the applicant-defendant-petitioner, which were sought to be introduced after the commencement of trial. CR NO.1974/2009 3 The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application. Hence the present revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant petitioner and perused the record. I find no illegality in the impugned order. As already stated above, the case was at the stage of defendant's evidence when the application in question was moved. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1)RCR Civil 763 held that Court cannot allow amendment in pleadings after commencement of trial. Moreover, the amendment sought does not appear to be such which in spite of due diligence could not have been raised before the commencement of trial. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 16.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge