SAMEER KAUSHAL Vs. CAPT. PARMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 8.2.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kharar allowing the application of the defendants/respondents for amendment of the written statement. The trial court allowed the application by recording the following order;

(2.) I have heard Mr. Rajinder Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner who has argued that the amendments have been sought for collateral purpose of seeking benefits in criminal proceedings pending under Sec. 38 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also amendments are contradictory to the stand taken by the defendant -respondents in their earlier written statement. However, from the perusal of the proposed amendment as it clear from Para (a) (b) that the amendments are mostly formal in nature and are not contrary to the stand taken by the defendant -respondents in their earlier written statement. For example, the amendment proposed in para 1 is as under;

(3.) A perusal of the proposed amendments allowed by the Civil Judge would make it amply clear that the plaintiff -petitioner is unlikely to suffer any prejudice by permitting the amendment in the written statement filed by the defendants -respondents. The Supreme Court in Prem Bakshi v/s. Dharam Dev, 2002 130 P.L.R. 558 (SC) has categorically observed that allowing the application under order VI Rule 17 of the Code permitting amendment of the pleadings would hardly cause any prejudice to the other party and therefore, unless it is shown that it would result into failure of justice no revision petition should be entertained. The observation of their Lordships reads as under: -