IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6176 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: September 6, 2011. Ajay Sharma. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Brij Lal and another. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mrs. Sonia G.Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.K.Bhatti, Advocate for respondent No.1. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 11.08.2010 vide which application filed by petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’) for amendment of rent petition before learned Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, was dismissed. CR No.6176 of 2010 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned appellate Authority, Jalandhar. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, present petitioner-landlord filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) for ejectment of respondent-tenant from the premises in dispute on the ground of personal necessity. Petition was contested by respondent. The petition filed by present petitioner was dismissed by learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar. Petitioner filed rent appeal before learned appellate Authority, Jalandhar under the Act. During pendency of the appeal an application for amendment of main petition was filed. Petitioners have sought to seek the amendment on the ground that the petition was not decided by learned Rent Controller on merits but on the ground that petitioners had not pleaded in the petition that they had not got vacated any other such building without sufficient cause after the commencement of the Act and they are not occupying any other such building. Now by way of amendment they intend to incorporate the said necessary ingredients of the ground for eviction on personal necessity. It is pertinent to reproduce the amended provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which reads as under:- “17. Amendment of pleadings.- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: 2 CR No.6176 of 2010 Provided 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.” Law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vidyabai and others v. Padmalatha and another, 2009(1) RCR (Civil) 763 that no application for amendment is to be allowed after commencement of trial, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the parties could not have raised the matter before commencement of trial. Hence, petitioner was required to explain that in spite of due diligence he could not raise the matter, which he now intends to raise by way of amendment before commencement of trial. However, in the present case the facts which are now sought to be taken by way of amendment in the original petition for ejectment were in the knowledge of present petitioner. Rather the facts are the very basis of petition for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity. Learned appellate Authority, Jalandhar has given sufficient reasons while dismissing the application for amendment of petition. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned appellate Authority, Jalandhar in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675: AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that supervisory jurisdiction is not 3 CR No.6176 of 2010 available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) September 6, 2011. JUDGE 'om’ 4