Civil Revision No. 1356 of 2010 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1356 of 2010 Date of decision : 2.3.2010 M/s Metro Tyres Limited Petitioner Versus Sushil Kumar and another Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. I.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with Mr. M.S. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition for the ejectment of the petitioner-tenant from the tenanted premises on an averment of personal necessity. The plea came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller, vide order dated 15.1.2009. In an appeal filed by the petitioner-tenant before the Appellate Authority, a plea was raised to obtain the leave of the Appellate Authority to amend the written statement. The averment, in support thereof, was that the written statement as originally filed, was totally vague and did not properly respond to the averments made in the course of the petition. On an averment that it amounted to misconduct on the part of the learned counsel who represented the petitioner-tenant in the course of the proceedings before the learned Rent Controller, the plea raised was for the amendment of the written statement. The plea was negatived by the learned Appellate Civil Revision No. 1356 of 2010 -2- *** Authority . The petitioner-tenant is in revision against it. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant argues that the allowance of the plea would be in accord with the principle that a party must not suffer on account of dereliction on the part of a counsel. While being cognizant of the fact that the amendment plea had been raised in appeal and there could be a possible accusation of the plea having been filed after inordinate delay, the learned counsel relied upon Smt. Inderjit Kaur Vs. Sher Singh and others 2010 (1) The Punjab Law Reporter 542, Andhra Bank Vs. ABN Amro Bank N.V. And others (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 167 and Twist Spin Industries, Mumbai Vs. KMH Entreprises, Chennai AIR 2010 (NOC) 34 (BOM.) to buttress the advocated view that delay need not impede the allowance of the request as it would sub-serve larger ends of justice. I have not be able to persuade myself to find any force in the plea. Though there may be no reservations in accepting the proposition that delay, perse, may not justify the non suiting of an applicant in the context, it cannot be wished away that each case has to be analysed in the light of its peculiar facts and circumstances. In the present case, the petitioner-tenant allowed the trial to go through and it is only after a verdict adverse to him came to be granted by the learned Rent Controller that it has opted to file an application for amendment of the written statement during the pendency of appeal. It is evident from the nature of request made Civil Revision No. 1356 of 2010 -3- *** that if it comes to be allowed, it would amount to a de-novo trial. The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the learned counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. None of those cases pertained to an eventuality where a plea for amendment may have been made in the course of hearing of an appeal. In Smt. Inderjit Kaur's case (supra), applicant therein had already made a mention of alleged exchange, however, there was omission on the part of the plaintiff-applicant therein to lodge a formal challenge to the validity thereof. Apart therefrom, the plaintiff-applicant therein omitted to challenge the Jamabandi entries for the indicated period and also a mutation. It was under those circumstances that a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the allowance of the amendment plea. In Andhra Bank's case (supra), the matter was pending before the Trial Court and the proposed amendment only sought to introduce an additional ground of defence. Twist Spin Industries, Mumbai's case (supra) was a case wherein the amendment plea had been filed within two months from the date “admitting written statement” came to be filed. In the case before this Court, I find that the learned Appellate Authority recorded acceptable reasoning in negativing the plea for amendment. Finding recorded and also reasoning noticed by the learned Appellate Authority in support thereof are affirmed. In the light of foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. March 02, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE