CR-6943-2025 -1- 127 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6943-2025 Date of decision: 29.09.2025 VIJAY RANA ..Petitioner Versus PARMOD KUMAR ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Parveen Kumar, Advocate Mr. Rishipal Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The challenge in the present revision petition is to order dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, whereby application filed by the petitioner to amend the written statement was dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed suit for recovery against the petitioner by mentioning therein that respondent is carrying on business of commission agent and petitioner being customer of respondent used to borrow money from respondent from time-to-time. The petitioner filed written statement. That during evidence, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that all the facts regarding non-issuance of ‘J’ Form and falsity of signature in account books of respondent firm could not be mentioned inadvertently. Further that respondent-firm is doing business of money lending without having any money lending licence and respondent- firm took his signature on blank paper without lending any money taking advantage of cordial relationship between the parties and misused the same MOHD AYUB 2025.09.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-6943-2025 -2- therefore, the petitioner wanted to add these facts in his written statement because of which he filed application for amendment of written statement under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short ‘CPC’), which was dismissed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra. Hence, the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment in the written statement is very necessary for just decision of the case and he would suffer irreparable loss and injury. Learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra without appreciating the facts and circumstances, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the written statement. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file of this case with his able assistance. 5. A perusal of the file reveals that in the application for seeking amendment in written statement filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, it is submitted that the written statement was filed by the petitioner but during the course of preparing the case for evidence and for further proceedings, it came to the knowledge of counsel for the petitioner that all the facts and pleadings disclosed by the petitioner regarding non-issuance of ‘J’ Form, falsity of signature in account books of respondent-firm could not be mentioned in the written statement filed earlier therefore, he wanted to amend the written statement. 6. Admittedly, the respondent filed suit for recovery of money and it is not the case of the petitioner that written statement was filed hurriedly and no effective opportunities was granted to him to file written statement or that he did not have sufficient time to write about all these facts. Further, that MOHD AYUB 2025.09.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CR-6943-2025 -3- these facts were not in the knowledge of the petitioner when he filed the written statement and during the course of evidence only he came to know about all these facts as mentioned above for which application for amendment of written statement was filed at the stage of evidence. The amendment application under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC for amending written statement is filed at the stage when the evidence of respondent was already closed and it was fixed for recording the evidence of the petitioner. 7. Since, no reasoning regarding not including these facts which he wants to bring on record now by amending the written statement is given, therefore, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in order dated 01.05.2025 passed by learned Nyayadhikari, Gram Nyayalya, Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, and the same is hereby affirmed. 8. Consequently, the present petition is hereby dismissed. September 29th, 2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2025.09.29 18:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.