C.R. No. 2724 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2724 of 2011 Date of Decision: April 27, 2011 Sardara …..Petitioner Vs. Balbir Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) An application filed by the plaintiff- petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint to incorporate the words “licensee”, “license” and “license fee” in place of “tenant”, “let out on rent” and “lease money” respectively in the plaint at the stage of rebuttal evidence stands dismissed by the trial Court. The trial Court has observed that the amendment sought for by the plaintiff- petitioner would change the nature of the suit and that it has been filed to fill in the lacuna at a belated stage. C.R. No. 2724 of 2011 [2] The Court also arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish that despite due diligence, he could not file an application for amendment at earlier stage. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that a great injustice has been caused to the plaintiff- petitioner. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- appellant and I am of the opinion that permitting plaintiff- petitioner to change his stand by incorporating words “licensee”, “license” and “license fee” in place of “tenant”, “let out on rent” and “lease money” respectively will absolutely change the nature of the suit. There is a clear distinction between the status of a person as licensee or tenant. Allowing the amendment at a belated stage would certainly prejudice the rights of the defendant- respondents. No ground is made out for interference in the order passed by the Courts below. Dismissed. April 27, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE