2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2222 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1289



Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Rekha Mittal

CR No. 5054 of 2017(O&M)

Lakhwinder Singh


Jagtar Singh

                               Decided on 01/08/2017

For the Petitioner:                Mr. Munish Gupta, Advocate

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6 R,17–Amendment of Written Statement-Belated
StageNot even a whisper as to why the facts sought to be added by way of
proposed amendment could not be pleaded in original written statement-
Application held to be rightly dismissed.                                                      (Para 6)


Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.: (Oral) – The present petition directs challenge against order dated 05.07.2017 (Annexure P-5) whereby application filed by the petitioner/defendant for amendment of written statement has been declined.

  1. Jagtar Singh- respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,68,4807- on the plea that
    petitioner/defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on the basis of pronote and
    receipt dated 17.03.2011 and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 1.56% per month but failed
    to return the amount despite repeated requests. The petitioner/defendant filed the written
    statement and, in turn, denied taking loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and having executed the pronote
    and receipt on 17,03.2011 with further averment that the pronote and receipt are forged and
    fabricated documents. The original written statement was filed on 15.04.2015 and the instant
    application for amendment of the written statement was filed on 20.03.2017 at the time when
    the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner/defendant, after respondent/plaintiff had
    already concluded his evidence.
  2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the proposed amendment is
    allowed, the petitioner would not pray for recalling witnesses of the respondent/plaintiff
    already examined in order to confront them with the facts sought to be added by way of
    It is further submitted that as onus to prove the facts sought to be added by
    way of amendment would be on the petitioner/defendant, no prejudice would be caused to
    the respondent/plaintiff in case the proposed amendment is allowed for adding certain
    facts reproduced in para 2 of the impugned order. The last submission made by counsel
    is that scope of amendment of written statement is much larger than that of a plaint,
    therefore, the application may be allowed.
  3. I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paperbook particularly the order
  4. Be that as it may, it is undisputed position of the case that the present application for
    amendment has been filed after commencement of trial and rather after the respondent/
    plaintiff had already concluded his evidence and the case is pending for recording
    evidence of the petitioner/defendant. The legislature, by way of amendment made in the
    year 2002, added proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
    reads as follows:-

“17. Amendment of Pleadings. – The Court may at any stage at the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that

in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

  1. No doubt, the proviso may not create a complete bar against allowing an application for
    amendment filed after commencement of trial but in the case at hand, there is not even a
    whisper as to why the facts sought to be added by way of proposed amendment could not
    be pleaded in the original written statement. Perusal of the application would make it
    evident that the petitioner has sought to amend the written statement at the stage of his
    defence evidence on mere asking. In case such an application is allowed, it would be in
    flagrant violation of what has been envisaged in proviso appended to Rule 17 CPC. In this
    view of the matter, I do not find any error much less illegality in the impugned order
    warranting intervention.
  2. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.