MANJEET SINGH Vs. DEEPAK TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through physical hearing.

(2.) This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dtd. 29/1/2021 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bathinda whereby the application dtd. 23/10/2019 (Annexure P-3) filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

(3.) The brief facts relevant to the present case are that the plaintiff respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,00,000.00 (Rs.2,40,000.00 being the principal amount and Rs.60,000.00 being the amount of interest @ 1% per month w.e.f. 16/1/2016 to 15/2/2018) along with pendente lite and future interest @ 1% per month w.e.f. 16/2/2018 till realization of the same. Written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner wherein a categoric stand was taken that the defendant-petitioner had repaid Rs.2,00,000.00 to Pawan Kumar, Proprietor of the plaintiff-respondent Firm on 25/4/2018 in the presence of Jagsir Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of Sema, District Bathinda in the shop of Tirath Ram after taking said amount from Tirath Ram of Firm Satpal Jindal and the balance amount was also paid to the plaintiff-respondent by the defendant-petitioner with interest and no amount was due against the defendant-petitioner, which is recoverable by the plaintiff-respondent. On 25/2/2019 issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The evidence of the plaintiff-respondent was closed on 1/10/2019. On 14/10/2019, the affidavits of DW-1 and DW-2 were tendered in evidence wherein the stand taken in the written statement was reiterated. At the stage of cross-examination of the defendant-petitioner, an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Vide impugned order dtd. 29/1/2021 the said application was dismissed on the ground of having been filed at a belated stage.