C.R. No. 8433 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8433 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.12.2010 Mukesh Kumar Vadehra ….. PETITIONER VERSUS Surinder Kumar ….. RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) In the present petition, the challenge is to the order dated 22.05.2010 passed by the Rent Controller, vide which an application for amendment of the petition has been rejected by the Rent Controller. Counsel for the petitioner contends that certain wrong averments were made in para-5 of the petition, which need to be rectified and, therefore, the amendment was necessitated. He contends that the case is at the initial stage and, therefore, the said amendment should have been allowed by the Rent Controller. I have gone through the original petition, which has been appended with the case file as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the same clearly indicates that there was a specific admission made by the petitioner C.R. No. 8433 of 2010 2 in the petition which was with regard to the earlier filing of the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act on the basis of ground of non-payment of rent from the month of February, 2002 up-to May, 2009 in the Court, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 18.05.2009 after receiving the rent. This averment when was countered by the respondent in his written statement, the petitioner sought to seek an amendment of the same. The order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the said amendment reads as follows:- “ Now, it is well established principle that the object of the courts is to try the merits of cases that came before them and should consequently allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Provided that it does not cause prejudice and injustice to other side. Ultimately, the courts exist for the purpose of doing justice between the parties and not for punishing them and they are empowered to grant amendment of pleading in larger interest of doing full and complete justice to the parties. Further provisions for the amendment of pleadings are intended for promoting the ends of justice and not for defeating them. Now, in the present case, the petitioner/applicant has no where stated as to how the proposed amendment is necessary for deciding real controversy between the parties. Proposed amendment which applicant wants to make is of admission made by him, which cannot be allowed. So, accordingly, proposed amendment is not necessary for deciding the real controversy between the C.R. No. 8433 of 2010 3 parties which is the main objective of amendment. So accordingly application in hand is dismissed being devoid of any merits.” The order passed by the Rent Controller is fully justified and does not call for any interference by this Court. Dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE December 23, 2010 pj