IMPORTANT POINT
Amendment of written statement--Permissibility--Affidavit of three witnesses in the shape of examination-in-chief already had been tendered by plaintiff when application for amendment written statement was filed--Defendant did not cross-examine those witnesses for three hearings--Trial had commenced, when application for amendment of written statement was filed--Amendment sought could not be allowed.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 21.08.08, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, vide which, the application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of written statement, filed by the defendant, was accepted.

2. During the pendency of suit, for specific performance of agreement of exchange dated 27.06.02, in respect of 1/4 share of defendant No.1, in house No. 1546, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh, filed by the plaintiff, he (defendant No. 1), filed an application, under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the amendment of written statement. By way of amendment, defendant No. 1, wanted to add the facts that his signatures were obtained on blank papers, by the plaintiff, which were, later on, converted into an agreement of exchange; that the plaintiff, had been under suspension, since 1998, in a corruption case, popularly known as Jerath case, and was also sentenced to imprisonment, in the same; that he was in financial problem; that certain blank cheques, duly signed by him, were handed over to his sister i.e. the wife of the plaintiff, for paying his monthly instalments of house No. 1546, Sector 38-B, Chandigarh, for which, he had given General Power of Attorney, to her; that the same were subsequently misused and the case with regard to the same, was already pending. It was stated that the amendment, was essential, for the just decision of the case.

3. The application, was contested, by the plaintiff/respondent, stating therein, that the pleas, which defendant No. 1, wanted to incorporate, by way of amendment, were not relevant, for the just decision of the case. It was further stated that three witnesses of the plaintiff, had already been examined-in-chief, but the same were not cross-examined, for the last three hearings, despite their presence. It was denied, that any new developments took place, during the pendency of the lis. It was further stated that all the alleged facts sought to be incorporated were already in the knowledge of defendant No. 1. It was further stated that, in view of the proviso engrafted to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, once the trial commenced, the amendment of written statement could not be allowed. It was further stated that the application for amendment, had been filed, just with a view to delay the proceedings, in the case.

4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, the trial Court, accepted the application, vide order dated 21.08.08.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner.

6. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and respondent No. 2, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.

7. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the pleas sought to be added by defendant No. 1, by way of amendment, were not at all relevant, for the just decision of the controversy, involved in the suit. He further submitted that these pleas were already in the knowledge of defendant No. 1, and did npt come into being, during the pendency of the suit. He further submitted that, even the amendment of written statement, could not be allowed, because the plaintiff, as the trial had already commenced, had already examined-in-chief, three witnesses, who had not yet been cross-examined by defendant No. 1/applicant, for the last three hearings, and he was delaying the case.

8. Respondent No. 2, did not oppose the submissions, made by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner.

9. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It is evident, from the record, that the suit, was filed, in the year 2003, for the specific performance of the agreement of e