C.R. No. 2348 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2348 of 2010 Date of decision 16.7.2010 Punjab National Bank .......petitioner vs. Ram Kaur and others .......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is the order passed by the learned trial Court on 18.3.2010, whereby an application filed by the defendant-petitioner for amendement of the written statement, was declined. The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for possession and also claimed Mesne Profits. During the pendency of the suit, the parties entered into a settlement. In terms of the said settlement as per the defendant, the plaintiff was to withdraw the present suit. The suit continued and was decreed by the trial Court. However, the judgment and decree was set aside by the learned first Appellate Court on 30.4.2009 and the matter was remitted back for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application for amendement of the written statement to plead compromise whereby the plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the suit. The amendment sought is that premises in question has been C.R. No. 2348 of 2010 -2- included in the area of Municipal Council, Gurgaon, therefore, the provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 are applicable and that the petitioner has thus become a protected tenant. It is further sought to be pleaded that in terms of settlement, the suit is to be withdrawn. The said settlement was arrived at after filing of the written statement. The learned trial Court dismissed the application seeking amendment of the written statement primarily on the ground that such amendment has been sought after gross delay. I do not find that the reasons given by the learned trial Court are sustainable in law. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court has been set aside, with liberty to parties to lead evidence. Therefore, it can be said that the trial has not commenced. The parties are yet to lead evidence. Therefore, amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 will not bar the defendant to seek amendment in the written statement. The amendment sought is in respect of the conduct of plaintiff. As per the statement, the plaintiff was to withdraw the suit. Since, the plaintiff has not withdrawn the suit even after settling the dispute, such ground should be permitted to be raised so as to adjudicate all disputes between the parties in an effective manner. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. The petitioner-defendant is permitted to amend the written statement, as prayed for. Allowed, in the above terms. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 16.7.2010 preeti