IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 01.12.2010 C.R.No.2557 of 2002 Pushpa Devi ...Petitioner Versus Rattan Singh Gupta and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The plaintiff is in revision aggrieved against an order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.04.2002, whereby an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the plaint was declined. The plaintiff has filed a suit for mandatory injunction for directing defendant No.1 to render account of the cost of the building incurred by him and to accept the balance cost of the building after adjusting the rent payable by him to the plaintiff. It is pointed out that the plaintiff has leased out the two plots to defendant No.1 for a period of 10 years. Defendant No.1 entered into lease agreement with defendant No.2 and the said defendant advanced a loan for construction on the properties of the plaintiff. By virtue of amendment, the plaintiff sought to delete the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 by alleging that the said defendants have vacated the building and, therefore, are not necessary parties. However, another amendment was to delete word ‘symbolic’, so as to claim actual possession C.R.No.2557 of 2002 from the defendants. The learned trial Court has found that the amendment cannot be allowed, as it will create a new cause of action and change the entire nature of the case. From the perusal of the averments made in the plaint, it is apparent that the building is situated in the urban area and, thus, a tenant inducted by the plaintiff is a protected tenant and governed by the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. Such tenant cannot be evicted in a suit for mandatory injunction. Therefore, the amendment so as to delete the word ‘symbolic’ will change the entire nature of the suit, which cannot be permitted. However, the amendment sought by the plaintiff to delete the name of defendant Nos.2 and 3 requires acceptance. The plaintiff, as dominus litus, is to choose the parties required to be impleaded by him. Though it can be said that application under Order 6 Rule 17 may not be appropriate for deleting the names of defendant Nos.2 and 3, but the nomenclature of an application is not determinative of the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court seized of the matter was competent to pass an order of deleting defendant Nos.2 and 3 in terms of the order 1 Rule 10 sub-clause (2) of the Code. In view of the above, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are ordered to be deleted, but the amendment sought to delete the word ‘symbolic’ is declined. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. 01.12.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2