Faqir Chand vs Pardeep Kumar
2024 Latest Caselaw 6843 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Faqir Chand vs Pardeep Kumar on 2 April, 2024

Author: Alka Sarin

Bench: Alka Sarin

                                                                                2024:PHHC:044267

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                        125                                         CR No.1952 of 2024
                                                                    Date of Decision : 02.04.2024


                        Faqir Chand                                                    ....Petitioner

                                                          VERSUS

                        Pardeep Kumar                                                ....Respondent


                        CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN


                        Present :     Mr. Deepak K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.


                        ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the

order dated 20.02.2024 whereby an application filed by the petitioner under

Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of para 3(ii) of the written statement

has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner came to know that the adjoining shop had been vacated by the

tenant therein and the moment he came to know he filed the application for

amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that

the amendment goes to the root of the matter and hence the same ought to

have been allowed.

3. Heard.

4. In the present case admittedly the evidence of the petitioner

stands concluded. As per the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

it has specifically been averred that out of 04 shops, shop No.4 was got

integrity of this order/judgment

CR No.1952 of 2024 -2- 2024:PHHC:044267

vacated on the ground of bonafide requirement on the basis of an amicable

settlement vide order dated 20.04.2017. The argument of learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner came to know that the shop was vacated

only in the year 2022 cannot be accepted inasmuch as there is not a whisper

in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC regarding the date of

knowledge. Rather, it has only been stated that the petitioner wants to amend

para 3(ii) and wants to add the portion stating therein that shop No.4 had

been got vacated on the ground of bonafide requirement on the basis of an

amicable settlement vide order dated 20.04.2017. It has been noticed by the

Rent Controller that prior to filing of the application the petitioner had

availed 08 opportunities to lead his evidence. Allowing the present

application would entail a de novo trial. There is no reason forthcoming as to

why the order which was passed in the year 2017 was not brought on the

record by the petitioner earlier.

5. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the present

revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending

applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

( ALKA SARIN ) 02.04.2024 JUDGE jk

NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES/NO

integrity of this order/judgment