AMAR UJALA PUBLICATIONS Vs. RAJIV PRASHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged order dated 05.11.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Muktsar by which application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short "CPC"] for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed.

(2.) In brief, respondent No.1 (plaintiff) filed a suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs for a malicious publication of a news in the newspaper 'Amar Ujala' (petitioner) dated 11.02.2004. A joint written statement was filed by defendant No.2 and the petitioner (defendant No.3) in which no preliminary objection was taken and averments made in the plaint were replied on merits alone. Issues were framed on 29.05.2007 by the learned Trial Court. The plaintiff closed his evidence on 20.01.2009 and the case was posted for evidence of the defendants for 12.02.2009. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on many dates. Then on 25.08.2009, an application was field by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 05.11.2009. It is also pertinent to mention at this stage an order of the learned Trial Court dated 17.12.2009 by which evidence of the petitioner was closed because defendant No.3 (petitioner) did not lead any evidence despite last opportunity. The said order is reproduced as under: -

(3.) It is also pertinent to mention that the impugned order dated 05.11.2009 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this revision petition in this Court on 14.12.2009. The revision petition was re-filed on 16.12.2009 and was listed before this Court on 17.12.2009 when notice of motion was issued by this Court, but on the same day the learned Trial Court had closed the evidence of the petitioner in terms of the order which has been reproduced above. It is also pertinent to mention that this fact was never brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner that his evidence has already been closed by order of the Court.