Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 467 of 2008 Date of Decision: April 22, 2008 M/s Paper Pac, 264, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana & others ...Petitioners VERSUS Ramesh Mangal & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr.Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The prayer of the petitioners for amendment of the written statement filed in a rent petition is declined. The application seeking amendment of the written statement filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 2 : was filed while the case is pending before the Appellate Authority having been decided by the court of Rent Controller. The respondent-landlords have filed the ejectment petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioners from a portion measuring 1540 sq.yards shown as red in the site plan attached with the petition along with the common passage in the property in dispute. It is the case of the petitioners that entire premises under their tenancy has not been shown in the red colour in the site plan Exh.P1 and, thus, the respondent-landlords have filed this ejectment petition for partial ejectment of the petitioner-tenants, which is not maintainable. It is then pleaded that the petitioners inadvertently could not take this objection at the time of filing written statement that petition for partial ejectment would not be maintainable. It is accordingly pleaded that the petitioners want to take preliminary objection No.6 in the written statement in this regard. Plea further is that the proposed amendment is necessary for proper and effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. The respondent-landlords have contested this application. It is pointed out that the petitioners have admitted the existence of tenancy before the court of the Rent Controller and as such the present amendment is only aimed at withdrawing the said admission that too when this petition is pending for adjudication for the last more than five years. Mr.Sumeet Mahajan, by referring to the site plan, would say that the petitioners are tenants not only in the portion shown as Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 3 : red, but are also tenants in area shown as green and marked ABCD in the site plan, Annexure P-2. The petition filed by the respondent-landlords is for ejectment of the petitioners from the portion of the land, which measures 1540 sq.yards. It is conceded by Mr.Mahajan before me that total area under tenancy is 1540 sq.yards, which is shown as red and green in the site plan, Annexure P-2. Once this factual position is conceded, then it cannot be accepted that the landlords had sought partial ejectment of the petitioner-tenants from the demised premises. It is also required to be noticed that this application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been made during the pendency of the appeal. The rent petition has already been decided by the court of Rent Controller. It was also pointed out by the counsel for the respondent-landlords that initially the petitioners had only been leased out area of 1195 sq.yards, which is shown in red in the site plan and subsequently another area measuring 342 sq.yards was leased out to the petitioner-tenants,thus, making a total area of 1540 sq.yards as the tenanted premises. It is in this background that the portion leased out initially is shown in the red colour, but the portion leased out subsequently is marked as ABCD in red colour but is shown in green colour just to identify that this portion was taken on lease subsequently. The contention of Mr.Mahajan that while deciding the application for amendment, the court could not have gone into to see the merits of the amendment would also not advance his case any further. This is only an explanation given by the respondents, which Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 4 : is noticed by the court and by referring to this. It does not mean that the court had gone to see the merits of the amendment sought while declining the prayer of the petitioner-tenants. It is not otherwise seriously disputed before me that the strict rules of procedure as prescribed under Civil Procedure Code would not apply in the present case and those provisions would apply in principle only. Even if that be so, the principles for allowing amendment of the pleadings as laid down under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC cannot be completely ignored. As per amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the court may allow amendment of the proceedings at any stage of the proceedings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, but it has to see that all such amendments are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Now a proviso has been added under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to the effect that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. This is even not pleaded by the petitioners that the amendment, which is sought now, could not have been raised inspite of due diligence before the commencement of the trial. It obviously could not have been so. The petitioners are wanting to amend the pleadings on the basis of a site plan which was annexed with the rent petition. Initially the petitioners could not raise this plea throughout the trial and have now filed this application when the appeal against the decision of the Rent controller is pending. It, thus, Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 5 : cannot be said that the petitioners could not have raised this matter before the commencement of trial inspite of due diligence. This is not even so urged or asserted by the petitioners. Thus, the prayer made by the petitioners would also not be covered under the provisions of the procedural law or the principles that govern such amendments. The attempt on the part of the counsel for the petitioners to make reference to certain judgments would also not be of much avail to him. The counsel has placed before me certain judgments without saying as to how they will apply to the present case. The counsel has passed on copies of the judgments in Usha Balashahed Swami and others Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami and others, (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 602 and Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Versus K.K.Modi and others, (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 385. On the basis of these judgments, the contention appears to be that the amendment in the plaint or that of a written statement would stand on different footings and that the principle, which would generally governs the amendments of the plaint, would not be attracted in the case of amendment of a written statement where even addition of new grounds of defence or substituting or altering a defence or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement would not be objectionable. In Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal's case (supra), it was held that the court should allow amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties, provided that it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. I have already considered this aspect. It is doubtful if the Civil Revision No.467 of 2008 : 6 : amendment as sought is necessary for determining the real question in controversy, but apparently it seems that this amendment if permitted would cause injustice or prejudice to the respondents, who would now be asked to defend if they are seeking partial ejectment, though factually it may not be so. The liberal approach required to be adopted in allowing amendment in the written statement would not mean that the proviso under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is to be completely ignored. It is also required to be noticed and appreciated that even the provisions of procedural law are not strictly applicable to regulate the plea of amendment as made by the petitioners in a rent petition. I am accordingly of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or irregularity, which may call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. April 22, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE