Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jeetinder Singh vs Inderjit Singh Batra And Others on 3 October, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : October 03, 2012
Jeetinder Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
Inderjit Singh Batra and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. B. S. Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 24950-C-II of 2012 :
Allowed as prayed for. Main Case :
Jeetinder Singh, who is respondent no.1 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short - the Tribunal), as driver of the alleged offending Truck Trolla, has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 15.09.2012 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Tribunal, thereby dismissing application Annexure P-5 moved by the petitioner for amendment of his written statement. C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M) 2
In the original written statement (Annexure P-2), the petitioner herein has denied the very factum of accident involving the Truck in question. By amendment of written statement, the petitioner wants to completely change the said version and wants to plead a new version that his Truck was parked on kutcha berm on extreme left side of the highway leaving sufficient space for another vehicle between the metalled road and Truck of the petitioner. It was alleged in the amendment application that the previous counsel engaged by the petitioner herein did not file the written statement as per petitioner's instructions.
The amendment application was opposed by claimants as well as by insurance company.
Learned Tribunal, vide impugned order (Annexure P-6), has dismissed the application for amendment of written statement filed by the petitioner, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgments namely M/s Estralla Rubber vs. Dass Estate (Pvt.) Ltd. reported as AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3295, Shahjahan vs. District Judge, Faizabad reported as 2010 (3) CivCC 915, State of A. P. and others vs. Pioneer Builders, C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M) 3 A. P. reported as 2007 (2) ALL MR 435, B. K. N. Pillai vs. P. Pillai and another reported as AIR 2000 Supreme Court 614 (1), Pankaja and another vs. Yellappa (D) by L.Rs. and others reported as AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4102 (1), Surender Kumar Sharma vs. Makhan Singh reported as AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2671, M/s Hi Sheet Industries vs. Litelon Limited reported as 2007 AIHC 1281 and Milkha Singh vs. Parshotam Dass reported as 2007 (1) RCR (Civil) 495 and contended that amendment of written statement should be allowed as law of amendment of written statement is quite liberal. It was submitted that witnesses of the claimants would not be cross-examined further after the proposed amendment of written statement.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted.
Petitioner, who is respondent no.1 before the Tribunal, as well as owner of the same Truck, being respondent no.2 before the Tribunal, engaged same counsel to represent them before the Tribunal. The said counsel is still representing the owner of the Truck before the Tribunal. He stated before the Tribunal that written statement of driver - petitioner herein was drafted according to his instructions. The petitioner has taken a false plea that the written statement was not drafted by the previous counsel as per his instructions. In fact, there is no reason why the counsel would not C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M) 4 draft the written statement as per instructions of the party. There is no allegation that the counsel had connived or colluded with the claimants or the opposite party. Thus, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands to seek amendment of the written statement. Instead of admitting his own fault, the petitioner tried to lay the blame at the door of his previous counsel.
In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner, by amendment of written statement, wants to completely change the version pleaded by him in the original written statement. Such amendment cannot be allowed at fag end of the trial. Judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are not at all applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Claimants have already led their evidence. It was last opportunity for evidence of respondents before the Tribunal (including the petitioner herein), when the amendment application was filed to gain further time. Written statement filed by the owner is also similar to the written statement filed by the driver - petitioner. Thus, it cannot be said that the written statement of the petitioner was not drafted as per his instructions.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the proposed amendment of written statement sought by the petitioner herein has been rightly declined by the Tribunal. Impugned order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for C. R. No. 5847 of 2012 (O&M) 5 interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
October 03, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE