IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2317 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision : 24.08.2011 Manjit Kaur and another ...Petitioners Versus Jatinder Singh Grewal and another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for the respondent No.1. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) As per the averments made in this revision petition respondent- landlord originally filed an eviction petition against respondent No.2 on the ground of his personal necessity. Later on, the petitioners were also impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3 in the said eviction petition vide order dated 01.03.2011. The petitioners also filed reply to the ejectment application. Para No.5 of the reply filed on behalf of the petitioners, in the rent application reads thus:- “That the petitioner wants to sell the property in dispute at higher rate and therefore he is using all the tacts to get the possession of property in dispute and therefore he has filed false FIR against the answering respondent and his family members.” Thereafter, petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the written statement/reply on the ground that the need of the respondent-landlord was Civil Revision No.2317 of 2011(O&M) -2- not bona fide and he wants to sell the property in dispute and thus the amendment was sought to give detailed particulars to prove their assertion that landlord is not in bona fide need of the premises. The said prayer of the petitioners was declined by the Rent Controller vide impugned order. The operative part of the aforesaid reads thus:- “After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that amendment which is sought to be made by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the written statement is not necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved between the parties. Whatever respondents want to get incorporated in their written statement, it has already come on record in the cross examination of the petitioner and deposition of the petitioner in this regard does not give cause of the respondents to amend the written statement. Moreover, it has already been pleaded in the written statement that petitioner wants to sell the property in dispute at higher rate and therefore he is using all the tacts to get the possession of the property in dispute. Accordingly, it is held that no ground is made out for allowing the respondents to amend the written statement. Application stands dismissed accordingly.” The instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid order, declining their prayer to amend the written statement. During the course of hearing on July 4, 2011, on the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the following order was passed:- “ CR No.2317 of 2011 Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Civil Revision No.2317 of 2011(O&M) -3- Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.1. *** “It is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order whereby his application for amendment of the written statement has been declined. The amendment has been sought to give detailed particulars by the petitioner-tenant to prove his assertions that landlord is not in bona fide need of the demised premises and in fact he want to sell the property in dispute. Reliance has been placed on an advertisement in the newspaper 'Ludhiana Kesri' dated 27.02.2011. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-landlord has disputed the aforesaid fact and submitted that the aforesaid advertisement seems to be an act of mischief played by the petitioner. Let the parties filed an affidavit making specific averments denying the fact that the aforesaid advertisement in the newspaper was not given by them. List on 24.08.2011.” Today, in compliance of order dated 04.07.2011, respondent has placed on record his affidavit specifically making averment that advertisement given in the 'Ludhiana Kesri' on 27.02.2011 was not given by him. On the other hand, petitioners have not filed any affidavit. However, Mr. Sandeep Arora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners stated that as per his instructions even the petitioners have not given any such advertisement in the newspaper. Be that as it may, on the basis of such advertisement for selling of the property one cannot make an opinion that the need of the respondents is not bona fide. Civil Revision No.2317 of 2011(O&M) -4- A perusal of the plea taken by the petitioners in their written statement as extracted above and the impugned order would show that necessary pleadings by the petitioners with regard to the plea taken is already incorporated in the written statement. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order, whereby prayer of the petitioners to amend the written statement has been declined rightly. In this view of the matter, no error can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. 24.08.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) savita Judge