CR-3787-2025 (O&M) 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Sarika Arora Capt. Harjit Singh Toor CORAM : HON'BLE M Present: Mr. Mayank MANDEEP PANNU 1. Challenge in 28.05.2025 passed by learned Bassi, District SAS Nagar Mohali, vide read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed by the learned L 2. Learned couns written statement it an amount of Rs.50,000/ statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no such advance amount of Rs.50,000/ landlord. Therefore, the need arose to file CPC before the dismissed the application of the order. It is a settled law that the amendments (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CR Decided on : VERSUS Capt. Harjit Singh Toor and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge , District SAS Nagar Mohali, vide which application under Order 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed Lower Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant itten statement it has been inadvertently mentioned that an amount of Rs.50,000/- in advance to the petitioner” statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no mount of Rs.50,000/- was ever landlord. Therefore, the need arose to file an before the learned Trial Court. However, learned dismissed the application of the petitioner/defendant order. It is a settled law that the amendments, which are necessary -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-3787-2025 (O&M) Decided on :- 11.08.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU , Advocate for the petitioner. revision petition is to the order dated Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dera which application under Order 6 Rule read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC) seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed el for the petitioner/defendant contends that in the has been inadvertently mentioned that “the respondent has paid advance to the petitioner” whereas the above said statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no was ever paid by the petitioner/tenant to the application under Order 6 Rule rial Court. However, learned Trial Court has illegally petitioner/defendant without passing a detailed which are necessary, in controversy - revision petition is to the order dated (Senior Division), Dera Rule 17 or short, ‘CPC) seeking amendment of written statement filed by petitioner/defendant is dismissed contends that in the “the respondent has paid the above said statement is factually incorrect and was mistakenly typed due to oversight as no t to the Rule 17 has illegally detailed in controversy TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3787-2025 (O&M) are to be allowed. Thus impugned order 3. Learned counsel for respondent the trial has reached concluded. Hence, t learned Lower C been filed at the fag denying of the fact admitted by defendant 4. I have considered the r case. 5. It is not in dispute and the case is when the present application was moved. Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & An commencement conclusion that despite due diligence before commencement of trial. In the present case pleaded or proved. Rather way of amendment in written statement amount of Rs.50,000/ was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on record a photocopy of evidence of defendant she has reiterated the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was (O&M) are to be allowed. Thus, in the absence of a reasoned and speaking order, the order is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, the trial has reached at the stage of final argument Hence, the amendment cannot be allowed. Court has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having been filed at the fag-end of the trial and also on the ground that it amounts denying of the fact admitted by defendant which cannot be called a I have considered the rival submissions and peruse It is not in dispute that the evidence of both the sides stand concluded fixed for rebuttal evidence, if any, otherwise for final arguments, when the present application was moved. Hon’ble S Vidyabai & Ors vs Padmalatha & Another [2009(2) SCC 409 of trial, an amendment can be allowed only if the Court come conclusion that despite due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the present case pleaded or proved. Rather, it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by way of amendment in written statement, he pro amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid in advance to the landlord on the ground that it was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on photocopy of evidence of defendant – Sarika reiterated the above-said version of having paid Rs.50,000/ the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was -2- f a reasoned and speaking order, the No.1, on the other hand, submits that the stage of final arguments and evidence has already been he amendment cannot be allowed. He further submits that ourt has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having and also on the ground that it amounts which cannot be called a clerical error. bmissions and perused the record of the the evidence of both the sides stand concluded if any, otherwise for final arguments, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 2009(2) SCC 409] has held that after an amendment can be allowed only if the Court comes to the party could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. In the present case, no such due diligence has been it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by he proposes to delete the fact that an advance to the landlord on the ground that it was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on Sarika, by way of affidavit, wherein said version of having paid Rs.50,000/- in advance to the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was - f a reasoned and speaking order, the on the other hand, submits that been He further submits that the ourt has rightly dismissed the application for amendment having and also on the ground that it amounts to clerical error. the record of the the evidence of both the sides stand concluded if any, otherwise for final arguments, upreme Court in the case of has held that after to a the party could not have raised the matter o such due diligence has been it is submitted by learned counsel for defendant that by poses to delete the fact that an advance to the landlord on the ground that it was inadvertently typed. However, learned counsel for respondent has placed on wherein advance to the petitioner. Thus, it belies the version of defendant that this fact was TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-3787-2025 (O&M) inadvertently mentioned in the written statement this fact in her evidence 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the learned lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 CPC, vide order dated 28.05.2025 present revision petition 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 11, 2025 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable (O&M) inadvertently mentioned in the written statement evidence. In view of the above, this Court is of the lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 , vide order dated 28.05.2025. Hence, the same is upheld and present revision petition stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 2025 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- inadvertently mentioned in the written statement, when she herself has reiterated In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 he same is upheld and accordingly Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No - reiterated view that the lower court has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 7 the TRIPTI SAINI 2025.08.13 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document