IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 M/s. Smart View Hotels & Resorts India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon and another .......... Petitioners Versus Harbati @ Harvati and another .......... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Tarun Yadav, Advocate and Mr. Ashutosh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners-defendants.

Mr. Vinay Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the respondents-plaintiffs.

****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners-defendants, by way of present revision petition, seek setting aside of an order dated 10.08.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC asking for amendment of written statement, was dismissed.

[2] Briefly stating, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 94,12,500/- alongwith interest against the petitioners-defendants. In the suit, it was pleaded that the amount was given to the petitioners-defendants by demand drafts towards friendly loan which was never returned back.

[3] Upon notice, the petitioners-defendants appeared and filed written statement primarily denying the averments made in the plaint but without putting forth their own defence.

[4] Upon framing of issues on 02.07.2015, the matter was posted for evidence of respondents-plaintiffs. Later, on 28.03.2016, at the time of cross-examination of PW-1-Ajit son of Pritam Singh (plaintiff No. 2), learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners, for the first time put forth their defence to the witness in the form of suggestion, however, the same was objected to being beyond pleadings. Thereafter, the petitioners- defendants changed the counsel on 28.09.2016 and filed an application seeking amendment of written statement on 04.07.2017 while mentioning the details that besides denial of the averments made in the plaint, no defence was put forth on merits as per the advise rendered by the learned counsel representing them at the time of filing of original written statement though their counsel was duly made aware of such facts As such, it was prayed that the petitioners-defendants may be permitted to amend the written statement giving details of their defence. The said application was opposed at the instance of respondents-plaintiffs being an afterthought and also an act to fill up the lacuna.

[5] Learned trial Court, vide its order dated 10.08.2021 dismissed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners for amendment in the written statement. Hence, the present revision petition.

[6] Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the previous written statement was filed as per the advise rendered by the learned counsel representing them at that point in time, for which the petitioners may not be made to suffer. He also submits that the defence sought to be put forth by way of amended written statement was essential for the complete adjudication of the suit in hand and would also help the Court to decide the lis in an effective manner; he thus prays that the revision petition needs to be allowed.

[7] On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents- plaintiffs submits that from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it was apparent that the petitioners-defendants did not act in a bona fide and diligent manner and never remained vigilant about their rights and obligations to put forth the complete facts-defence in their written statement at the appropriate stage and thus, they were not entitled to seek amendment of written statement at this belated stage, when the plaintiffs’ evidence was about to conclude. He thus submits that the impugned order warrants no interference and the present revision be thus dismissed.

[8] I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their submission(s).

[9] A perusal of the record shows that the suit for recovery is based on the averments that a friendly loan was extended by the respondents-pl