IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7296 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.11.2011 Smt. Manu Sharma w/o Raj Kumar ......Petitioner(s) Versus Inder Singh s/o S.Nidhan Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order of the Rent Controller dated 16.7.2011 whereby application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement has been declined. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy in terms of judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Harjit Singh Uppal v. Anup Bansal, JT 2011 (6) SC 236, wherein it has been observed as under:- "Section 15(1) (b) of the 1949 Rent Act provides, to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Controller, a remedy of appeal. The Section provides for limitation for filing an appeal from that order and also the forum to which such appeal would lie. The provision, for maintaining the appeal, does not make any difference between the final order and interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller in the proceedings under the 1949 Rent Act. There is no specific provision in the Section that if a party aggrieved by an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller does not challenge that order in appeal immediately, though provided, and waits for the CR No.7296 of 2011 (O&M) -2- final outcome, whether in the appeal challenging the final order of the Rent Controller, the correctness of the interlocutory order from which an appeal lay could or could not be challenged in the appeal from the final order." Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had approached this Court immediately by challenging the impugned order and was pursuing her remedy before this Court bona fidely, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner, to pursue her remedy in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as aforesaid before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law and in case, an appeal against the impugned order is filed before the Appellate Authority within a period of 15 days from today, the question of limitation shall not be raised against the petitioner and any such appeal filed shall be decided on merits. Disposed of. November 28, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE