PARMODH KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have challenged order dated 06.02.2018, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Court No. II, Una, H.P. in CMA No. 242 of 2018 in Civil Suit No. 515 of 2013, vide which, an application filed by the petitioners/defendants for amendment of written statement stands dismissed by the learned Trial Court.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the records appended with the petition including the impugned order dated 06.02018.

(3.) A perusal of the impugned order demonstrates that what weighed with the learned Trial Court while dismissing the application so filed for amendment of the written statement was that issues in the case stood framed as far back as in the year 2013 and the recording of the evidence of the plaintiff was also complete on 06.05.2017. Thereafter, on two dates, no evidence was led by the defendants and on the 3rd date, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for amendment of the written statement. Learned Trial Court further held that the only explanation given as to why the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed at such a belated stage was that the purported mistake which was intended to be corrected by way of proposed amendment came into the notice of the defendants only at the time of preparing for evidence. Learned Trial Court held that no cogent explanation was furnished by the defendants as to why the application could not be filed at an early stage by the defendants and further, from the suggestions which were put forth to the plaintiff's witnesses in the course of their cross-examinations, it was difficult to accept the averments made by the applicants in the application.