Chand Lal Surana & Anr. vs Dharambir Saini & Anr.
2010 Latest Caselaw 1395 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI



                                                         Date of Reserve: March 05, 2010
                                                            Date of Order: March 12, 2010
+ CM(M) 237/2010
%                                                                            12.03.2010

       Chand Lal Surana & Anr.                    ...Petitioners
       Through: Mr. TPS Kang and Mr. MM Alam, Advocate

       Versus

       Dharambir Saini & Anr.                    ...Respondents
       Through:Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal & Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates


       JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.     Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.     Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


       JUDGMENT

1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have assailed an order

dated 8th January, 2010 passed by learned ADJ, Delhi in Suit No.386 of

2009 dismissing an application of the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17

read with Section 151 CPC for amendment of written statement. A

perusal of record would show that the petitioner had earlier made an

application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading Shri Hazari as a

party. This application was dismissed and the petitioners did not

challenge the order of refusal of impleading Shri Hazari as a party.

During trial, after evidence of plaintiff's witnesses, the petitioner made

this application for amendment of written statement on the ground

CM(M)237/2010 Chand Lal Surana & Anr. v. Dharambir Saini & Anr. Page 1 Of 2 that during cross examination of plaintiff's witnesses some more facts

have come on record and the petitioner should be permitted to

incorporate those facts in the written statement.

2. The learned trial court dismissed that application and rightly so.

The application made by the petitioners and the present petition are

misconceived. The provision for amendment of pleadings cannot be

allowed to be misused. The facts which come on record by way of

evidence are to be taken cognizance of by the court in accordance with

laws of evidence. A party does not have a right to amend the pleadings

after recording of evidence a witness on the ground that witness

disclosed certain facts in his evidence. If it is allowed, the party can

keep on amending the pleadings after testimony of each witness. That

would be a mockery of trial. Even otherwise, pleadings are supposed to

contain the facts in concise form and not the evidence. The evidence

which comes on record of the court is to be seen in light of the

pleadings and ought to be considered at the time of adjudication. No

party can be allowed to keep on amending the pleadings on the basis

of evidence of the witnesses. I find no force in this petition. The petition

is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.

March 12, 2010                                                  SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd




CM(M)237/2010   Chand Lal Surana & Anr. v. Dharambir Saini & Anr.            Page 2 Of 2