GAGANDEEP SINGH Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant assailing the order dtd. 16/7/2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda, whereby his application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed. Brief facts

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.4,33,000.00 i.e. Rs.3,50,000.00 as principal amount and Rs.83,000.00 as interest @12% per annum, on the basis of a promissory note and receipt dtd. 10/9/2017, alleged to have been executed by the petitioner/defendant. Upon service of notice, the defendant appeared and filed his written statement wherein he categorically denied the execution of the promissory note and receipt, terming them as forged and fabricated. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. At that stage, when the matter was fixed for defendant's evidence, the present application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed seeking amendment of the written statement.

(3.) In support of the application, it was urged on behalf of the defendant that at the time when the written statement was originally filed, two criminal complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, filed by the plaintiff-Paramjit Singh, were pending adjudication before the learned Judicial Maigstrate, Ist Class, Talwandi Sabo. Those complaints were based on the same set of alleged documents, namely the disputed promissory note, receipt, as well as two cheques purportedly issued by the defendant. Subsequently, vide judgment dtd. 3/1/2025, both the complaints were dismissed as the plaintiff, who was complainant therein, failed to prove his case. It was the stand of the defendant-Gagandeep Singh that the plaintiff had misused blank signed cheques and a blank signed pronote and receipt which were handed over only as collateral security, with the understanding that these would be destroyed upon settlement. However, with mala fide intention, the plaintiff misused the same and instituted false complaints, which have now been disbelieved by the criminal court. The defendant, therefore, sought amendment by way of introducing para 5-A in the legal objections of his written statement to plead this subsequent development, contending that such amendment was material for just adjudication of the controversy in the present civil suit. It was further argued that the amendment was bona fide, would not change the nature of the defence, nor cause prejudice to the plaintiff, and that law regarding amendment of written statement is liberal.