C.R.No.6732 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.6732 of 2009 Date of Decision : 18.11.2009 Amit Chandna ...Petitioner Versus Iqbal Arora and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S.Cooner, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in revision, aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 1.10.2009, declining to raise counter claim by way of amendment of the written statement. The plaintiff-respondents have filed a suit for possession after termination of tenancy of the defendant-petitioner. The plaintiffs have also claimed rent from July 2008 to October 2008. The defendant- petitioner filed his written statement, raising multifarious pleas and sought the dismissal of the suit. Thereafter, on 28.9.2009, an application was filed for amendment of the written statement, so as to raise preliminary objections and for raising counter claim. The written statement was permitted to be amended, as the plaintiffs did not object to the amendment. However, introduction of counter-claim was resisted, which has been accepted by the learned trial Court and it is the said order, which is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition. The petitioner has sought to incorporate by way of counter claim, a decree for mandatory injunction for renewal of lease in terms of C.R.No.6732 of 2009 2 Clause 14 of the agreement dated 28.9.2005, which contemplates that after the expiry of the lease period, the fresh rent agreement will be charged at the market rate. The learned trial Court found that the relief sought to be introduced by way of counter-claim has already been allowed by permitting the defendant to add the relevant paragraphs. It also held that the written statement on behalf of the defendant has already been filed, therefore, the defendant cannot be permitted to set up a counter-claim in respect of cause of action arisen either before or after filing of the suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rohit Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 12 SCC 734, to contend that counter-claim can be raised after filing of written statement, but cannot be raised after the issues are framed. It is, thus, contended that since the issues are yet to be framed, therefore, the defendant-petitioner has a right to claim decree for mandatory injunction by way of amendment in the written statement. There is no dispute with the proposition canvassed in the judgment propounded by the learned counsel for the petitioner. But the question of law decided in the aforesaid judgment are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The petitioner has been permitted to amend the written statement, disputing the right of the plaintiffs to seek possession from the defendant. The defendant wants to rely upon Clause 14 of the Agreement to defeat the right of the plaintiffs, to seek extension of lease. The plea in the written statement raised, is defence to the plea raised by the plaintiffs. The defendant relies upon a clause in the C.R.No.6732 of 2009 3 agreement to seek a decree for mandatory injunction by way of counter claim. By virute of the counter-claim, the defendant is, in fact, seeking specific performance of the terms of the agreement without satisfying the ingredients necessary for seeking such relief. It appears that the defendant wants to delay the decision of the suit on one plea or the other and, therefore, sought to introduce counter-claim primarily with a motive to delay the proceedings. In view thereof, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference by this Court in the present revision petition. Dismissed. 18.11.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE