Mohammad Ilyas vs Mohammad Nazir
2023 Latest Caselaw 1557 P&H

CR-1417-2019(O&M)                           -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                CR-1417-2019(O&M)
                                Date of decision:-24.1.2023

Mohammad Ilyas

                                                               ...Petitioner
                  Versus

Mohammad Nazir
                                                              ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present:    Mr.S.K. Singla, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.K.B. Raheja, Advocate
            for respondent.


                         ****
H.S. MADAAN, J.

1. Under challenge in this revision petition is order dated

4.2.2019 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority,

Sangrur vide which an application filed by appellant/respondent-tenant for

amendment of the written statement had been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that petitioner/landlord

Mohd. Nazir had filed an ejectment petition against respondent-tenant

Mohd. Ilyas with regard to shop in dispute. That ejectment petition was

allowed by Rent Controller, Malerkotla vide order dated 31.3.2016.

Feeling aggrieved, the tenant had preferred an appeal before Appellate

Authority, Sangrur, notice of which was given to the landlord arrayed as a

respondent in the appeal, who had put in appearance. During the course of

proceedings, the appellant/tenant filed an application for amendment of

1 of 4

CR-1417-2019(O&M) -2-

written reply stating that it has come in evidence that Mohd.Nazir

landlord is owner in possession of three other shops and this fact was

admitted by the landlord in his cross-examination that he has three other

shops adjacent to shop in dispute. However, the submission made by

learned counsel for the tenant before Rent Controller was rejected for the

reason that no such plea had been taken in the written reply, therefore, the

applicant/appellant wanted to amend the written reply.

3. That application was resisted by the landlord/respondent in

the appeal. The Appellate Authority, Sangrur vide the impugned order

dated 4.2.2019 had dismissed the application, leaving the appellant/tenant

aggrieved, who has filed the present revision petition, notice of which was

given to respondent/landlord and he has put in appearance through

counsel.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

5. The proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clearly dilates that 'no

application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has

commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due

diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the

commencement of trial'.

6. Furthermore, in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the

amendment of pleadings can be allowed only if it is necessary for the

purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the

parties. In the present case the application was rightly declined by the

Appellate Authority since if allowed it would have put the clock back

2 of 4

CR-1417-2019(O&M) -3-

resulting in stretching the proceedings further and the proposed

amendment is not such without which the controversy between the parties

cannot be adjudicated in an effective and proper manner. While

dismissing the applciation, learned Appellate Authority, Sangrur has

observed that these very contentions can be raised at the time of

arguments in appeal. The Appellate Authority has already protected the

rights of the appellant/tenant stating that he can raise the plea in that

regard during the course of arguments.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/tenant has referred

to judgments Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Versus Kiran Appaso

Swami & Ors., 2007(2) RCR(Civil)830, Pritam Singh Versus Avtar

Singh, 2010(9) RCR(Civil)912, Arya Mitter and another Versus

Harbans Lal and another, 2009(3) RCR(Civil)756, Aadish Aggarwal

and another Versus Brijeshwar Swaroop and another, 2018(1)

RCR(Civil) 33 and Padam Sain Versus Meena and others,

2017(2)RCR(Civil)696. However, those are not helpful to the petitioner in

any manner due to different facts and circumstances and the context in

which such observations had been made.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent/landlord also referred to authorities Naveet Singla Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority and others, 2016(3)

RCR(Civil)1049, Hardayal Singh Versus Kirpal Singh, 2000(1)

RCR(Civil)249, Ranbir Singh Versus Bhupinder Kaur and another,

2017(3) Law Herald 2215 and Ram Niwas Versus Daya Nand and others,

2015(5) RCR(Civil) 692 in support of his contentions that the application

3 of 4

CR-1417-2019(O&M) -4-

was rightly dismissed by the Appellate Authority, Sangrur.

9. I find myself in agreement with the Appellate Authority,

Sangrur and do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order,

which might have warranted interference by this Court by exercising

revisional jurisdiction.

10. Finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands

dismissed.

24.1.2023                                           (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij                                                    JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking :              Yes/No

Whether reportable               :       Yes/No




                                     4 of 4