20.02.2025 Singh Jaspal Singh v. a Singh Karora Singh
Case Details
CR-7221-20 2024(O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 129 CR-7221-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 Singh Jaspal Singh .…Petitioner Versus a Singh Karora Singh ....Respondent CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. JS Bhinder, Advocate for th e for the petitioner. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. Prayer in the instant revision pe 227 sion petition filed under Article 227 of the Const Constitution of India is for setting asi 024 ng aside the order dated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P xure P-1), passed by the learned trial
Legal Reasoning
443 trial Court, in Civil Suit No. 1443 of 2021 title 1 titled as ‘Karora Singh vs. Jaspal Si tion l Singh’ whereby the application file by the pe the petitioner-defendant under Order tion Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for PC for amendment in the written stat ner, en statement filed by the petitioner, was dismisse ismissed. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petition t the etitioner, inter alia, submits that the impugned or ned order (Annexure P-1) deserves t rned rves to be set aside as the learned trial Court h ourt has failed to appreciate that some ned t some facts could not be mentioned in the written written statement. As such, the petition 5 in petitioner wants to add para No. 5 in the prelimin eliminary objections of the written st t the tten statement to the effect that the alleged Agre d Agreement to Sell dated 12.07.2019 part 7.2019 fails due to fault on the part of plaintiff/r intiff/respondent herein, as, he had fa med had failed to get the land redeemed from the Ba the Bank; and amendment was also the also sought in para No. 9 of the written state n statement on merits. It is submitted t ents itted that the said facts/amendments RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-7221-20 2024(O&M) -2- are necessar cessary for the proper adjudication of ngly tion of the matter. It is, accordingly prayed that t aside. that the impugned order be set aside. 3. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for the petitione titioner. 4. I have heard learned counsel fo nsel for the petitioner and perused the case file se file in great detail. 5. Brief facts of the case are tha ed a re that respondent-plaintiff filed a Civil Suit da Suit dated NIL (Annexure P-2) for p cific for possession by way of specific performance mance of Agreement to Sell dated the dated 12.07.2019 executed by the petitioner-de defendant in favour of the respond , the espondent. In the said civil suit, the petitioner ha ner had filed written statement dated 0 , the dated 03.04.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner fil ner filed the present application date nder n dated NIL (Annexure P-3) under Order VI Ru VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 1 tion 151 CPC, seeking amendment of his writte written statement to add para No. 5 ions No. 5 in the preliminary objections and to amen amend para No. 9 of his written sta filed ten statement. The respondent filed reply dated dated NIL (Annexure P-4) opposing the posing the said application of the petitioner. V ner. Vide the impugned order dated 13 , the ated 13.11.2024 (Annexure P-1), the application ation of the petitioner under Order een Order VI Rule 17 CPC, has been dismissed. 6. Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as u ds as under: - “17. Amendment of pleadings. of the proceedings allow either pleadings in such manner and just, and all such amendments necessary for the purpose of de in controversy between the part Provided that no application allowed after the trial has co comes to the conclusion that in gs. -The Court may at any stage ither party to alter or amend his and on such terms as may be ents shall be made as may be of determining the real questions parties: ation for amendment shall be s commenced, unless the Court at in spite of due diligence, the RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-7221-20 2024(O&M) -3- party could not have raise commencement of trial.” raised the matter before the 7. A bare reading of the proviso sion roviso to the above-said provision shows that it that it is very categorically stipulated on ulated therein that “...no application for amendm ndment shall be allowed after the tr he he trial is commenced , unless the Court come omes to the conclusion that in spit rty spite of due diligence, the party could not not have raised the matter bef before of the commencement of trial.” Admi Admittedly, the trial has commence The menced in the present case. The present appl application under Order 6 Rule 1 has ule 17 CPC for amendment has been filed by iled by the petitioner after conclusion lusion of the plaintiff evidence and at the stage stage of defendant evidence i.e. muc much after trial had commenced which, is not is not permitted as per law. In fact, th 2) fact, the present suit (Annexure P-2) is pending fo ding for evidence of the defendant-pe and petitioner since 19.10.2023 and the petition etitioner had taken more than 15 of an 15 opportunities. Number of opportunities tunities have been granted to the def lude he defendant-petitioner to conclude his evidence idence; including costs were imposed iled d which the petitioner had failed to pay. Inst Instead of concluding his evidenc the vidence and submitting costs, the petitioner ha ner has filed the present application e, it ation (Annexure P-3). Therefore, it appears that rs that the present application has b has been filed by the defendant- petitioner on ner only to delay the proceedings. 8. Further, the only situation after tion in which amendment after commencem encement of trial is envisaged is if ‘ he is if ‘in spite of due diligence, the party could ould not have raised the matte of atter before commencement of trial.’ Howe However, in the present case that is no itted at is not so as. It is the own admitted case of the f the petitioner that at the time of ent, e of filing the written statement, certain facts facts were omitted to be mentioned o be tioned. The facts now sought to be RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-7221-20 2024(O&M) -4- incorporated orated in the written statement are the to the effect that: (a) that the alleged agre d agreement to sell fails due to fault o fault on the part of the plaintiff- respondent a dent as he had failed to get the land and land redeemed from the bank; and (b) that the at the amendment sought to the ef had the effect that the defendant had suffered hug ed huge loss of ₹54,00,000/-, so the the so the earnest amount paid by the plaintiff stoo ff stood forfeited. However, even the oner the application of the petitioner does not me ot mention that he was not aware of e of are of the above facts at the time of filing the wr the written statement. It would, theref oner therefore, appear that the petitioner was well in ell in the knowledge of the said facts cise d facts, however, failed to exercise due diligenc iligence. In any event, the said fact the d facts have no connection to the transaction a ction at hand. Thus, no ground is m the d is made out to interfere in the impugned or ned order. 9. In view of the above, the the instant revision petition is ssed. dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, s
Decision
any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 20.02.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.02.21 14:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.