CR No. 5022 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 5022 of 2009 Date of Decision: 2.9.2009 Suchet Chopra ....Petitioner. Versus Ranjana Walecha, Proprietor, M/s Kay Dee ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. B.D. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the defendant-petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed him under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of written statement was dismissed. The trial court while dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement had recorded as under:- “Perusal of the file transpires that vide application dated 28.10.05, the applicant/defendant had approached the court for issuing the directions to plaintiff to produce bill Nos. 2268, 2296 and 2300. CR No. 5022 of 2009 -2- However, later on again application was moved whereby it was submitted by defendant that inadvertently he mentioned wrong number of the bill. In fact the bill number requires to be produced by the plaintiff is 2288 dated 10.11.2004 and bill No. 2296 dated 01.12.2004. In the present case, the plaintiff has already closed his evidence and defendant has examined himself as DW-1 by way of examination-in- chief. In the opinion of court, the said application has been moved by the applicant/defendant at belated stage because the said bill No. 2008 dated 31.12.2004 was produced by the plaintiff in his evidence as Ex.P25 and while conducting cross examination of PW-1 on 25.8.2008 counsel for the applicant had questioned the witness with regard to the said bill and present application for amendment has been moved on 03.03.2009. That means the applicant/defendant was well aware of bill No. 2008 dated 31.12.2004 being produced by the plaintiff in his evidence and he also questioned the witness to that effect and inspite of it he did not move the application promptly. Rather application for amendment of written statement was moved after a gap of six months when defendant had tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and the case was fixed for cross examination of defendant witness. CR No. 5022 of 2009 -3- The application has been moved after substantial delay and it was not open to the applicant to fill up the lacunas in his written statement. The amendment if allowed would start a de novo trial of the present case as counter claim has already been filed by the applicant and it will result into re-casting of issues and plaintiff would be again required to lead his evidence. Hence, the present application has been moved by the applicant just to delay the proceedings of the case when suit is at its fag end. The application is hereby dismissed.” In view of the above, this Court is satisfied that no illegality or perversity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the order dated 29.5.2009 passed by the trial court which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there is no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. September 2, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE