The main legal point established in the judgment is that the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code did not apply as the original pleadings were filed prior to the amendment, and the plea sought to be raised for elaborating the factum of fraud was not inconsistent with the earlier stand taken.

Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This order shall dispose of CR No. 5933 of 2004 titled Jai Singh v. Smt. Sukhjit Kaur, CR No. 4679 of 2005 titled Jai Singh v. Gurcharanjit Singh and others and CR No. 2005 titled Jai Singh v. Amrik Singh and others, as common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions.

2. For facility, facts are being taken from CR No. 5933 of 2004.

3. These revision petitions have been filed against the order passed by the learned trial Court vide which application made by the petitioner-defendant for amendment of the written statement has been declined.

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell regarding agricultural land belonging to the defendant- petitioner. It was also prayed therein that the defendant-petitioner may be restrained from selling, alienating or encumbering the suit property. In the written statement the execution of the agreement was denied and it was claimed that the agreement is the outcome of misrepresentation. The present application was moved to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the particulars of fraud. It was also mentioned therein that the particulars of previous litigation were also required to be mentioned in the written statement. It was also claimed that the present suit for specific performance was filed after the defendant has filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff. The application was opposed on the ground that no plea of fraud was taken with regard to the agreement of sale in question and therefore, it was claimed that the said plea could not be allowed to be raised now. It was also claimed that the proposed amendment was not necessary and the same cannot be allowed as per the amended Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) as no amendment of pleadings could be allowed after the commencement of trial.

5. Learned trial Court dismissed the application firstly on the ground that the plea of fraud was not available to the plaintiff as fraud and forgery are two different versions. Under the fraud the signatures are admitted whereas in the case of forgery the same are claimed to be forged one. The second ground on which the application was rejected was that after the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code it was not open to the parties to amend the pleadings after the commencement of trial unless it is proved that in spite of the due diligence the amendment sought could not be pleaded at the time of filing of the pleadings.

6. Mr. Bhoop Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has challenged the order primarily on the ground that the learned court below was in error in dismissing the application by invoking the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the said pleadings were filed prior to the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code, therefore, the learned trial Court was in error in dismissing the application on the said ground. In support of this contention learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Bimla Bhagat v. Dr. Suresh Bhagat, 2006(4) RCR(Civil) 413 wherein, this court was pleased to hold as under :-

"11. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties and find that the amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC would not apply to the present case as the original pleadings were filed by the petitioner on 17.11.2001 i.e. before the amendment of Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC. The amended written statement was filed on 21.3.2003 in view of the amended petition filed by the respondent-husband.

12. As regards the question of delay, the learned Court below was not right in rejecting the application on that ground as it could be compensated by payment of costs.

13. It is pertinent to note that in the present case the amendment sought was of written statement and therefore there was no question of change o