Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pramod Madan vs Shushila Bhogal on 2 December, 2022
CR-5648-2022(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR-5648-2022(O&M)
Date of decision:-2.12.2022
Pramod Madan
...Petitioner
Versus
Shushila Bhogal
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN
Present: Mr.Arnav Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
H.S. MADAAN, J.(ORAL)
1. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner-landlady
Ms.Sushila Bhogal had filed an ejectment petition on the ground of non-
payment of rent and personal necessity against her tenant Parmod Madan
seeking eviction of the latter from two shops situated at Bhai Wala
Chowk, Ferozpur Road, Ludhiana.
2. That ejectment petition was filed on 18.8.2015. Notice of that
petition was given to respondent, who put in appearance in the Court and
filed written reply contesting the petition. Issues were formulated and case
was fixed for evidence of the petitioner. The petitioner had adduced her
evidence and when the case was at the stage of evidence of respondent, he
filed an application for amendment of the written statement so as to
mention that rent was not paid by the respondent since there was dispute
of ownership of Rameshwar Saran Bhogal replacing name of Master
1 of 4
CR-5648-2022(O&M) -2-
Sukhia Ram Sahab; furthermore similar amendment is to be made in para
No.2(a) of the written statement on merits and in para No.2(d) on merits
to replace name of Naveen Bhogal by Narinder Bhogal; similar correction
to be made in para No.3 and date of decision is desired to be mentioned
9.6.1992. Several other additions and replacement of words in the written
statement at various places were sought.
3. That application was opposed on behalf of the petitioner-
landlady vehemently contending that it was highly belated and if proposed
amendment is allowed that would lead to withdrawal of admission made
in the pleadings by the respondent resulting in a de novo trial.
4. After hearing arguments, learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana
vide a detailed order dated 2.8.2022 dismissed the application leaving the
respondent aggrieved and he has filed the present revision petition
challenging the impugned order praying that the same be set aside and
application for amendment of written statement filed by him be allowed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going
through the record and I find that the revision petition is doomed for
failure.
6. The impugned order is quite detailed and well reasoned
passed in light of the settled legal position keeping in view the facts and
circumstances of the case. It has been observed that as per proviso to
Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, no application for amendment shall be allowed
after the trial has commenced unless the Court come to the conclusion that
in spite of of due diligence the party could not have raise the matter before
the commencement of trial and in this case the proposed amendment seeks
2 of 4
CR-5648-2022(O&M) -3-
to withdraw the admissions made by the respondent in the written
statement and if such amendment is allowed, the petitioner would be
irretrievably prejudiced being denied the opportunity of extracting the
admission from the respondent. Referring to the facts of the case learned
Rent Controller, Ludhiana had observed that responding to the assertion in
the ejectment petition that respondent was in arrears of rent in the written
reply filed by him, the respondent had taken up a plea that rent was being
received by Narinder Bhogal and Rameshwar Saran and there is dispute
of ownership between the LRs of Rameshwar Saran and after the death of
Rameshwar Saran Bhogal, no one came to receive the rent and that rent
was being received by Naveen Bhogal and now after closure of evidence
of petitioner and recording statement of one witness produced by the
respondent, the respondent is seeking amendment that dispute of
ownership was between LRs of Master Sukhia Ram Sahab and not
Rameshwar Saran Bhogal and Master Sukhia Ram Sahab was the one,
who was receiving rent from the respondent. He wants to add the
particulars of earlier rent petition and the date of decision of that rent
petition, which was not mentioned in the original written statement. The
respondent had failed to establish the circumstances, under which he
failed to raise this plea before commencement of trial. The only reason
given is that earlier counsel had not drafted the written statement correctly
but as per settled law such ground cannot be taken up to seek relief from
the Court. It was further observed that the proposed amendment will
change the nature of defence of respondent from one originally taken.
Finding no merit in the application, it was dismissed with cost of
3 of 4
CR-5648-2022(O&M) -4-
Rs.1,000/-.
7. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in this order.
Although learned counsel for the revisionist relying upon judgment Life
Insurance Corporation of India Versus Sanjeev Builders Private
Limited and another passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5909
of 2022 arising out of SLP(c) no.22443 of 2019 has submitted that the
proposed amendment is necessary to enable the Court to arrive at correct
decision and to adjudicate the controversy in a proper and appropriate
manner. But I do not find myself in agreement with him on this point. The
Rent Controller by giving cogent reasons has come to the conclusion that
the proposed amendment of written statement cannot be allowed. It did
not come to any conclusion that proposed amendment was necessary for
final and effective adjudication of controversy between the parties. The
trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the application vide the
impugned order. The same is upheld. There is absolutely no reason to
interfere with the impugned order and to allow the application filed by the
respondent/tenant.
8. Thus, finding no merit in the civil revision petition, the same
stands dismissed.
2.12.2022 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
