IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision 1130 of 2007. Date of Decision: 07st January, 2008... Ved Parkash & Ors. ...Petitioners through Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate Versus Kusam Rani & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. M.K.Singla, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT,J.(ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30th January, 2007 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Sunam whereby an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by the petitioners for amendment of their written statement, has been declined. The respondent – Kusam Rani has filed the afore-stated eviction petition against the petitioners, inter-alia, alleging that the subject property was rented out by her to the petitioners w.,e.f. 5th December, 1984 vide a rent note executed between the parties. She has sought eviction of the petitioners primarily on the ground that the premises has remained un-occupied and is lying closed from last more than eight months immediately prior to the filing of eviction petition. The petitioners contested the eviction petition and both the parties have led their evidence. At the stage when the case was fixed for arguments, the petitioners moved an application for amendment of the written statement so as to take a plea of non-joinder of necessary party as according to them the subject property was rented out to M/s Ganesh Dharam Kanda, Sunam, of which they were partners and the said partnership was not impleaded as a respondent. The learned Rent Controller, however, has dismissed the aforesaid application after observing that the plea sought to be taken by the petitioners would not only amount to introducing a new case, no such amendment can be allowed at this stage when the case is fixed for arguments as the facts now sought to be pleaded were already in the knowledge of the petitioners. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the rent note as well as the application for amendment moved by the petitioners. Since there is no mention of any Ganesh Dharam Kanda in the rent note, learned Rent Controller appears to be justified in observing that no new case can be allowed to be introduced at this stage. As regard to the rights, if any, accruing in favour of the HUF, the petitioners, on the basis of plea taken by them in para no. 3 of their written statement may, if so advised, raise such a plea at the time of arguments and the same shall be gone into, in accordance with law. Disposed of. January 07, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE