The main legal point established in the judgment is that an application for amendment of pleadings should not be allowed if the facts sought to be brought on record were within the knowledge of the party since a significant period and the party's case does not fall within the exception of due diligence contained in the relevant procedural rule.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

1. Present revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 23.1.2023 (Annexure P-9) passed by ld. Civil Judge (JD) Nabha whereby the application filed by petitioners/defendants u/O 6 R 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/ plaintiff presented cheques which was alleged to have been issued by the petitioners in the year 2006/2007. Said cheques were dishonoured, whereupon respondent registered an FIR no. 83 dated 11.9.2013 against the petitioners under Sections 406, 420, 120-B & 506 IPC. It is the petitioners’ own case that pursuant to the FIR, a false investigation was also conducted by the SP Detective, Sangrur wherein statements of certain witnesses were also recorded. Eventually, on 12.4.2019, the petitioners were acquitted in the trial that ensued from the said FIR.

3. Thereafter, respondent filed the present suit for recovery on 19.4.2016 (Annexure P1), to which petitioners filed written statement dated 26.9.2016 (Annexure P2). The parties led evidence, and vide order dated 4.9.2019 the evidence of the defendants was closed.

4. At this stage, petitioners filed an application seeking to lead additional evidence qua the enquiry which was conducted in pursuance to the FIR, and regarding the witnesses who had deposed in the said enquiry in favour of the petitioners stating before the police authorities that the petitioners/defendants did not commit any fraud and the entire payment had already been made to the respondent/ Plaintiff earlier. Though the enquiry report is already on court file as Ex. P-29, yet the petitioners stated that additional evidence qua the said evidence already on record was required to be placed on record being essential evidence. This application of the petitioners was dismissed by the Court below vide order dated 1.11.2022 (Annexure P-5); and even the revision petition No.5898/2022 filed by the petitioners against the said order was ‘dismissed as withdrawn’ by this Court vide order dated 14.9.2022 (Annexure P-6).

5. After all this, the petitioners have now filed the present application dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-7) for amendment of their written statement to bring on record the same facts/ evidence, regarding which their application for additional evidence already stands dismissed. Petitioners are seeking to amend the pleadings to place on record additional facts qua the same enquiry conducted in pursuance to the registration of the FIR, and qua the same witnesses who had deposed in favour of the petitioners in the said enquiry. It is this application (Annexure P-7) for amendment of the written statement that has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the enquiry report as well as the statements of the said witnesses who had deposed in the enquiry, are quite important as it helps to clinch the issue in question, whereby it will be evident that neither any amount was due or payable by the petitioners, nor had they committed any fraud. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has dismissed the application for amendment of written statement mainly on the ground of delay and laches and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is submitted that the amendment is sought only to bring on record the additional and conclusive facts for proper adjudication of the matter. It is stated that stand of the petitioners will not be changed in any way and that the additional facts pleaded are just and proper for adjudication of the matter.

7. No other argument has been advanced by the learned counsel.

8. Admittedly, the facts now sought to be brought on record pertain to the enquiry conducted and evidence collected in pursuance to the registration of the FIR dated 11.9.2013. Thus, these facts were within the knowledge of the petitioners. Admittedly, too, the FIR finds menti