LABH SINGH Vs. SURINDER KAUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing of Order dated 08.02.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, vide which, an application for amendment of written statement has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application moved by the petitioner has been dismissed by recording a wrong finding, whereas, the delay was on the part of plaintiff-respondent. By relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case Vidyabail and others vs Padmalatha and another, 2009 1 RCR(Civ) 763, it has been mentioned that the Court has no power to allow the amendment after commencement of trial. Learned counsel also submits that the amendment of written statement is necessary for just decision of the case and no prejudice will be caused to the other party in case the amendment is allowed. Learned counsel has also placed on record the zimini orders to show that the delay was on the part of the plaintiff respondent.

(3.) Learned counsel also relies upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases Surender Kumar Sharma vs Makhan Singh, 2009 4 RCR(Civ) 597, Abdul Rehman vs Mohd. Ruldu, 2012 4 RCR(Civ) 481, Andhra Bank vs ABN Amro Bank N.V. and others, 2008 1 BCR 836, Usha Balashaheb Swami vs Kiran Appaso Swami and others, 2007 2 RCR(Civ) 830 as well as the judgment of this Court in the case Neetu Goel vs Yogesh Goel passed in Civil Revision No.2631 of 2012, decided on 12.09.2012, in support of his contentions. I have heard the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned Order as well as other documents on the file.