IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1881 of 1996 Date of decision: 6th July, 2010 Smt. Lado … Petitioner Versus Charan Dass … Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. B.R. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present revision petition was filed, aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak, whereby, applying the formula envisaged under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, the fair rent was increased from Rs.125/- per month to Rs.160/- per month with effect from 26th August, 1994. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint was not decided and the Appellate Authority, Rohtak had proceeded to decide the appeal itself. Nobody has caused appearance for the respondent. After hearing counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it was incumbent upon the Appellate Authority to first decide the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint, before deciding the appeal. In support of this, counsel for the petitioner has placed on record a certified copy of the Civil Revision No.1881 of 1996 order dated 6th June, 1995 passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak on the file of the case. The same reads as under: “Present:- Sh. N.S.Kataria, proxy counsel for the appellant. Sh. O.P. Chugh, proxy counsel for respondent. An application u/sec.6 rule 17 CPC for amendment in plaint has filed, copy given. Case is adjourned to 22.8.95 for reply to application as well as arguments. Trial Court record received. Sd/- A.A. Rohtak. 6.6.95” In view of this, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, Rohtak on 7th February, 1996 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh. Needless to say, before this exercise is undertaken, the application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint shall be decided first. With the observations made above, present revision petition is disposed of. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE July 6, 2010 rps 2