C.R. No. 5396 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5396 of 2001 Date of Decision: 13.07.2010 Rakesh Kumar Sharma and others .... Petitioners Versus Sukhdev Kaur and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present :- Mr. Padam Jain, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Naresh Parbhakar, Advocate for the respondents 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes ALOK SINGH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in this revision petition is order dated 25.9.2001 whereby rejecting the amendment application moved by tenant defendant/revisionist in a proceeding for eviction. The brief facts of the present case are that respondent – landlord herein has initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant- petitioner in which written statement was filed by the petitioner- tenant. Petitioner-tenant moved an amendment application to incorporate pleadings clarifying the agreement dated 2.8.1975 which was already on record. Learned Rent Controller has rejected application on the C.R. No. 5396 of 2001 2 ground that by way of proposed amendment tenant-petitioner wanted to take contrary stand. I have carefully perused the record, undisputedly agreement dated 2.8.1975 is already on record. Defendant by way of proposed amendment does not want to introduce any new document rather wants to clarify the pleadings pertaining to the agreement dated 2.8.1975. In the opinion of this Court principle to allow amendment in the plaint and principle to allow amendment in the written statement is all together different. In the plaint no amendment should be allowed when by way of amendment, plaintiff wants to change the nature of the suit and cause of action or where plaintiff wants to withdraw important admission. In the case of amendment in the defence, there is no question of change of nature of the suit or cause of action. By amendment defendant can take alternate case. However, amendment in the written statement can be refused, if Court finds that by way of amendment defendant wants to withdraw important admission. It is not a case where defendant is seeking withdrawl of the admission. This is a case where defendant wants to clarify pleading pertaining to the agreement dated 2.8.1975 which is already on record. In the opinion of this Court amendment ought to have be permitted. Present petition is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Amendments sought by defendant-petitioner is permitted to be carried out in the written statement on payment of Cost Rs. 2000/-. Since case is old, parties are directed to appear before the Court concerned on 30.7.2010. Learned Rent Controller is directed to conclude hearing of C.R. No. 5396 of 2001 3 the case and to decide the case finally in any case within 6 months from today. (ALOK SINGH) 13.07.2010 JUDGE reena