CR No.6599 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6599 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 03.12.2009 **** Raman Dutt . . . . Petitioner VS. Narinder Syal . . . . Respondent **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Mandeep S. Sachdev, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27th October, 2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, whereby, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC moved by the petitioner-tenant for amendment of the written statement, has been dismissed. (2). Learned Rent Controller, Jalandhar has observed that the case is ripe for arguments as both the parties have already led their evidence and, therefore, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to amend the written statement. The reason assigned by the Rent Controller is completely in consonance with the legislative intent behind the proviso added to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by way of the Amendment Act, 2002. The impugned order, thus, warrants no interference by this Court. CR No.6599 of 2009 - 2 - (3). Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Controller, Jalandhar has made certain adverse observations against the petitioner in Para 12 of the impugned order, directly touching upon the merits of the case. (4). In my considered view, the observations made in the impugned orders are only in the context of deciding the application for amendment and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of final disposal. (5). Dismissed. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 03.12.2009 vishal shonkar