Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Kumar vs Manjit Kaur on 22 May, 2026
CR-4322-2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
109
CR-4322-2026
Date of decision: 22.05.2026
Jatinder Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Manjit Kaur .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present: Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, for setting aside the order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana, in the case titled as Manjit Kaur vs. Jatinder Kumar, bearing Rent Petition No.85 of 2019 dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P-1), pending for 25.05.2026, whereby the application (Annexure P-3) seeking amendment of the rent petition has been allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1-Manjit Kaur had filed a rent petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against the present petitioner-Jitender Kumar seeking his ejectment from a part of the property, as mentioned in the headnote of the petition. Notice of the said petition was issued to the respondent-Jitender Kumar, who contested the same by filing a reply. Thereafter, issues were framed and the parties led their respective evidence. At the stage of arguments, respondent-Manjit Kaur filed an application for amendment of the petition seeking deletion of the measurement of the room, i.e. 15' × 13.5', mentioned in the head note of the petition. The said application was contested ANIL KUMAR 2026.05.25 17:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4322-2026 2 by the present petitioner. The learned Rent Controller/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the application by holding that the amendment would neither change the nature of the case nor cause any prejudice to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has no objection if the learned Rent Controller hears only the arguments and the respondent is not permitted to lead any evidence.
4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought, issuance of notice to the respondent is dispensed with, as the same would only result in further delay in the proceedings.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the paper book with his able assistance.
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting upon the merits of the case and considering the fact that the learned Rent Controller, in the impugned order, has fixed the case only for arguments and not for evidence of the respondent, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Rent Controller to hear only the arguments in the case and not to grant any opportunity to the respondent to lead evidence.
7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
May 22, 2026 (AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL)
anil JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
ANIL KUMAR
2026.05.25 17:57
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document