CR No.3822 of 2010 (O&M) -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3822 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:01.11.2010. Gian Chand and another ...Petitioners Versus Bharat Bhushan Taluja ...Respondent CORAM: HON’B LE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. C.B.Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This revision petition has arisen out of an order passed by the Appellate Authority, Panipat dated 22.05.2010 by which an application filed by the petitioners for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed. In brief, the facts of the case are that the respondent-landlord filed a petition for ejectment against the present petitioners in respect of the premises in dispute which is situated in Patti Insar (Nahar Par), Jyoti Nagar, behind Saint Merry Church, Assandh Road, Panipat. The ejectment petition was filed on 01.04.2004 and was allowed on 13.08.2009 by the Rent Controller. The respondent had categorically mentioned in para No.6 of the ejectment petition that the premises in dispute is situated in Panipat to which the tenants/petitioners had replied by saying that “needs no reply”. No issue was also prayed for with regard to jurisdiction of the Court nor any evidence was led de hors the issue about the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of the location of the premises in dispute. After the CR No.3822 of 2010 (O&M) -2- **** ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in which the present application has been filed without attaching any site plan or any other prima facie evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the property in dispute is not an urban property as it is depicted by Khasra No.2509min, therefore, the said property is in rural area, consequently, the learned Court below should have allowed the amendment in the written statement. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record with his able assistance. Admittedly, the ejectment petition was filed on 01.04.2004. Issues were framed on 19.07.2004 and ejectment order was passed on 13.08.2009. In the ejectment petition, there is a specific averment that the premises in dispute is situated in Panipat which is not replied. Concededly, no issue was asked for about the jurisdiction of the Court nor any evidence was led even in the absence of the specific issue and above all, no documentary evidence has been produced on record along with this application to prove that the property in dispute is not within the urban area of Panipat. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition nor do I find any error in the impugned order of the learned Court below and as such, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. November 01, 2010. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE