-1- 117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-4897-2026 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 GURJEET KAUR AND OTHERS ...Petitioners Versus REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S SAHIB SINGH BALVINDER SINGH ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jatin Sardana, Advocate Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate Mr. Shivam Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No.1(i) and 1(ii). PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present civil revision petition has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants being aggrieved by order dated 13.05.2026, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahabad vide which their application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 for amendment of written statement was dismissed. 2. In the present case, facts are not much in dispute. Respondent/plaintiff had preferred a suit for recovery of Rs.12,33,356/- along with pendente lite and further interest @15% per annum from the LRs of Davender Singh on the ground that Devender Singh used to sell his agricultural produce and take money in advance from respondent/plaintiff CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.20 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4897-2026 -2- and during the course of these transactions advance payments were made and Rs.12,33,356/- is due against Devender Singh which is recoverable from his LRs since he has died. 3. Petitioners/defendants had contested the suit claiming that Devender Singh had no business relationship with respondent/plaintiff and Devender Singh had never engaged in any transaction with respondent/plaintiff. 4. Issues were framed and evidence of respondent/plaintiff was concluded. After conclusion of evidence of respondent/plaintiff, petitioners/defendants moved an application for summoning/recalling of PWs for the purposes of cross-examining them. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2024. Subsequent to dismissal of said application, present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, 1908 has been filed, whereby petitioners/defendants have sought amendment of written statement asserting that Devender Singh had relationship with respondents/plaintiffs being an agriculturist as is made out from kacha parchi and other documents which were found subsequently. That petitioners/defendants have come to know about this fact during the pendency of suit, subsequent to filing of written statement and accordingly, they wanted to amend the written statement by asserting relationship between Devender Singh and respondent/plaintiff being that of farmer and commission agency, which had been denied by them earlier. 5. Learned Court of first instance, however, has found reasons stated by petitioners/defendants to be an excuse. It was held that amendment sought is not necessary as in both, original written statement (which was sought to be amended) and in application for amendment, entries in books of CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.20 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4897-2026 -3- accounts are stated to be fabricated and forged and no due diligence has been shown on the part of petitioners/defendants to check the relationship between Devender Singh and respondent/plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners/defendants has argued that by making admission regarding claim of relationship as made by respondent/plaintiff, no prejudice would be caused and, therefore, written statement ought to have been allowed to be amended, so that entries in account books can be proved to be fabricated and forged as had been stated in the original written statement placing reliance on the kacha parchi and other documents issued by respondent/plaintiff to Devender Singh. 7. On the other hand, the case of respondents/plaintiffs is that the present amendment is only an effort to reopen the trial and delay the disposal of suit. It is argued that petitioners/defendants are trying to achieve and get the review of order passed by learned Court of first instance, whereby recalling of PWs has been rejected specifically, by way of present amendment. It is asserted that if amendment in written statement is allowed, the next step by respondent/plaintiff would be to seek re-examination of witnesses of respondent/plaintiff and it would amount to review of order earlier passed against petitioners/defendants. 8. Faced with above situation, learned counsel for petitioners/defendants has made a statement in the Court that he will not press for re-examination of PWs. Learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs has also made a statement at bar that if witnesses of respondents/plaintiffs are not called for re-examination, amendment of written statement only for the purposes of proving its case by petitioners/defendants may be allowed. This was accepted by learned counsel for petitioners/defendants. In view of CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.20 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4897-2026 -4- concession made by learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff as well as in view of the statement made by petitioners/defendants, one chance can be given to petitioners/defendants to prove their defence that account books are fabricated and forged while leading their evidence. 9. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Amendment of written statement is allowed to the extent that there existed a relationship of farmer and commission agency between Devender Singh and respondent/plaintiff, subject to the condition that evidence already led by respondent/plaintiff shall be considered to be evidence led by respondent/ plaintiff after amendment of written statement. Petitioners/defendants shall not press for recalling of respondent/plaintiff witnesses, however, shall be free to lead their evidence as per amended written statement. Right to rebuttal shall be available to respondent/plaintiff, if so desired. 10. Accordingly, present civil revision petition is disposed of in above terms. 11. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 16.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.20 09:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document