Civil Revision No. 275 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 275 of 2009 Date of decision 28.1.2009 Dr. N. K. Singla .....Appellant versus Dharam Pal Uppal .....Respondent Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. Manmohan Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. M. P. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate for Caveator. K. Kannan, J (Oral) 1. The petition for amendment of the written statement already filed was disallowed by the Rent Controller on the ground that the evidence had been concluded and it was posted for arguments and there was no justification for making the amendment. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that there was needless confusion about the stage of proceeding even as found in the order. The petitioner's side had been concluded but the respondents evidence was far from being completed. It was not posted for arguments. The counsel for the respondent contest this position and states that the evidence is already concluded. 3. I have seen the nature of objections which the respondent wants to take by way of amendment to the statement already filed. The respondent has pleaded issue of estoppel by conduct and the introduction of such case cannot cause any serious hardship. The Courts shall always be liberal in the matter of amendment of written statement. The amendment of pleading as Civil Revision No. 275 of 2009 -2- applicable to plaintiff is slightly at variance with what would apply to plaint, for after all, a defendant can take up even inconsistent pleas. 4. The rent control petition itself only of the year 2007. It might not be even fair to suggest that the tenant was only trying to prolong the proceedings. The amendment application filed ought to have been allowed on the correct application of the legal principles relating to amendment of the written statement. 5. The counsel for the revision petitioner states that he will only offer additional documentary evidence and will not do any act which will hamper the progress of trial. The counsel for the respondent points out that it is posted for arguments and shall not be permitted to adduce any oral evidence. I leave it to the Rent Controller to decide whether there is any scope of oral evidence in the pleadings and if ever any such request is made the Rent Controller will consider the issue under the particular facts and circumstances and decide on the same. 6. The order of the Rent Controller impugned is set aside and civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. ( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE 28.01.2009 A. KAUNDAL