IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 123 CR-491-2024 Date of Decision.:30.04.2025 Samyak Jain and Another Pe//oners Vs. Nem Chand (since deceased) through his Lrs and Others Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate for the peoners. Mr. Deepam Raghava, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) Peoners herein are the plainffs before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram in civil suit bearing No.CS-20673-2014 tled as “Samyak Jain and Others v. Nem Chand and Others”. They are aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by learned trial Court, whereby applicaon filed by them for not considering the amended wri8en statement of the defendants, wherein certain new pleas were raised, was rejected. 2. On hearing learned counsel for the peoner, what it emerges is that an applicaon for amendment of the plaint was allowed on 03.04.2023. In the amended plaint Para 13-B was inserted and prayer clause was amended. While filing the amended wri8en statement, defendants not only replied to the amended pleadings but also inserted some new paragraphs as NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.02 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-491-2024 is alleged. It is the contenon of learned counsel that defendants could not be allowed to file amended wri8en statement beyond the pleas as taken in amended plaint. 3. It has been observed by learned trial Court in the impugned order that plainff failed to disclose as to what new pleas had been raised by defendant No.3, which were pre-judicial to the interest of the plainff. Learned trial Court also observed that on perusal of the previous wri8en statement in juxtaposion to the amended wri8en statement, it was reflected that new addions are elaboraons of the previous pleas and in fact there was no inconsistency, adversarial to the interests of the plainff. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. 5. Faced with this situaon, learned counsel for the peoners seek liberty to file amended replicaon before the trial Court and then to frame the issue accordingly. 6. If any such applicaon is moved by the peoners, the same shall be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. Disposed of. ( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE April 30, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.02 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document