IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

232

CR No.4209 of 2019

Date of Decision : 21.12.2022

Sukhwinder Kaur

....Petitioner

VERSUS

Gurjant Singh

....Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

Present :

Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Kumar Garg, Advocate for the respondent.

ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of

the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 20.05.2019

(Annexure P-4) whereby the application filed by the defendant-petitioner for

amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the plaintiff-

respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,61,600/- against the defendant-

petitioner on the averments that the defendant-petitioner had borrowed a

sum of Rs.6,80,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent on 08.02.2017. The

defendant-petitioner filed a written statement taking a specific plea that she

had borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the plaintiff-respondent and at

that time the plaintiff-respondent had got the thumb impressions of the

defendant-petitioner on a blank pronote and receipt and now the plaintiff-

respondent has prepared the alleged pronote and receipt after forging the

same. Subsequently, issues were framed and the evidence of the plaintiff-

respondent commenced. On the commencement of the evidence of the

plaintiff-respondent, PW-2 Parwinder Kumar, Deed Writer, was summoned

along with Registers. Since the statement of PW-2 Parwinder Kumar prima

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.12.22 09:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CR No.4209 of 2019

-2-

facie belies the stand taken by the defendant-petitioner, the present

application for amendment of the written statement was filed wherein a

complete somersault was sought to be taken by introducing new facts to the

effect that the defendant-petitioner had borrowed a sum of Rs.80,000/- from

the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent had got thumb

impressions of the defendant-petitioner for the same. Later, on 06.07.2012,

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.80,000/- as principle amount plus

Rs.20,000/- as interest was outstanding against the defendant-petitioner and

as such on 06.07.2012 the plaintiff-respondent got executed a pronote and

receipt dated 06.07.2012 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Zora

Singh his father and the said pronote and receipt were also got scribed by the

plaintiff-respondent from Parwinder Kumar Goyal, Deed Writer. It is further

the averment in the application that the defendant-petitioner could not return

the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within a period of 2½ years and as such the

plaintiff-respondent after levying heavy interest on the amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- got thumb impression of the defendant-petitioner on another

pronote and receipt dated 09.01.2015 and got the same filled in the name of

his father Zora Singh from the same deed writer for an amount of

Rs.4,55,000/-. Thereafter, it is averred that yet another pronote and receipt

i.e. one in dispute in the present case was got prepared on 08.02.2017 by

showing an amount of Rs.6,80,000/-. The said application was contested and

was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.05.2019. Aggrieved by the

said order, the present revision petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner would contend

that the law regarding amendment of the written statement is liberal and

JITENDER KUMAR

2022.12.22 09:19

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh

CR No.4209 of 2019

-3-

hence the amendment ought to have been allowed. In support of his

arguments, he has relied upon judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

cases of Mahila Ramkali Devi & Ors. vs. Nandram (D) Thr. LRs & Ors.

[201