The judgment emphasizes the principle that allowing an amendment at a late stage, which would necessitate a de-novo trial, should be carefully considered.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 29.09.2022 whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff respondent herein filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.2,51,370/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Para-1 of the plaint reads as under :

'7. That defendants borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,71,000 -(One Lac Seventy One Thousand) as friendly loan from plaintiff and to reduce his liability, defendants issued two cheques bearing No.739581 dated 10.01.2013 for Rs.1,20,000/- & Cheque No.739605 dated 28.08.2014 for Rs. 51,000 - from his bank account maintained in Punjab & Sind Bank having A/c No. 4946 and 586 at Punjab & Sind Bank, Guru Nanak Nagar, Patiala and to fulfill his promise to return the amount defendants issued two cheques in favour of the plaintiff as security to return the amount borrowed from the plaintiff "

3. In reply to the said paragraph, the following response was given in the written statement, which reads as under :

'1. That para No.l of the suit is wrong and hence denied. It is wrong and hence denied that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,71,000 - from the plain tiff and to reduce his liability defendant issued two cheques bearing No.739581 dated 10.01.2013 for Rs.1,20,000/-and Cheque No. 739605 dated 28.08.2014 for Rs.51,000/-. It is worth to mention here that the plaintiff has m isused the present cheques as previously he has some business transactions with the defendant so the cheques were lying with since long. "

4. In 2017 though an amended plaint was filed, however, Para-1 of the plaint was not amended. Thereafter, again in 2022, an application for amendment of the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-respondent which was again technical in nature and a statement was made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant-petitioners that no amended written statement was required to be filed. The plaintiff-respondent closed his evidence on 04.02.2021. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the defendant-petitioners and it was adjourned time and again on the request of the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners. Subsequently, the present application was filed on 23.08.2022 for amendment of the written statement seeking to replace Para-1 of the written statement with the following paragraph:

'7. Para No.l of the plaint it is admitted that the defendant had borrowed an amount of Rs. 1,20,000 -from the plaintiff and also issued a cheque bearing No.739581 dated 10.01.2013 for Rs.1,20,000 - from his Bank account Punjab and Sind Bank, Guru Nanak Nagar, Branch Patiala. The plaintiff insisted for return of amount and interest, then the interest amount was settled as Rs. 51,000 - and the defendant gave a cheque dated 28.08.2014 of Rs. 51,000 - to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff again insisted the defendant to pay the amount, then the defendant paid the amount of Rs. 1,20,000 - to the plaintiff in the month of June 2015 after selling the plot situated at Rurki Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Certified copy of sale deed is attached as Annexure DI. The plaintiff assured the defendant that he will return the cheque of Rs. 1,20,000 - on payment of Rs. 51000/-. Thereafter the plaintiff misused the cheque dated 10.01.2013 of Rs. 1,20,000 - and filed suit for recovery inspite of the fact that the amount has already been paid to him and he also filed a complaint U/s 138 of N.I Act against cheque dated 28.08.2014 of Rs. 51,000/-. The defendant had paid the amount of Rs. 51,000 - in the Court of Ld. JMIC Patiala. Now nothing is pending towards the defendant. The plaintiff has already received the amount alongwith interest. The plaintiff has filed the false and frivolous suit against the defendant, which is liable