C.R. No.561 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No.561 of 2007 Date of Decision: 25.3.2008 Hukam Chand .....Petitioner Vs. Sohan Lal ....Respondent .... CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA **** Present : Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner, impugns an order dated 17.1.2007, passed by the learned Rent Controller Guhla, dismissing an application filed for amendment of the plaint. Despite service, no one has put in appearance to contest the revision petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner seeks to incorporate paras 3-A to 3-C in the petition, so as to merely incorporate pleas that the rent note was valid for a period of 11 months, the construction of the premises was completed on 31.12.1961 and the prevailing rent in the locality for similar shops is Rs.6,000/- p.m. It is asserted that the amendments are merely clarificatory and as the petitioner is still to lead his evidence, the application should have been allowed by the learned trial Court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. C.R. No.561 of 2007 2 Apart from holding that the petitioner had failed to establish due diligence, the learned trial Court held that the amendment could not be allowed, as the petitioner proposed to withdraw the admission made in para 3 of the original petition. The latter is factually incorrect. A perusal of the application for amendment discloses that the petitioner does not seek any amendment in para 3 of the petition except for adding paras 3-A to 3-C. As regards the finding that the petitioner failed to establish the exercise of due diligence, suffice it to say that as the petitioner is still to lead his evidence, the amendment could have been allowed by burdening the petitioner with exemplary costs. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is allowed, the order dated 17.1.2007 is set aside and the learned Rent Controller is directed to take the amended petition on record and proceed further in accordance with law, subject however, to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs. 25.3.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE