The High Court of Himachal Pradesh dismissed a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for amendment of pleadings in an ejectment case. The Court held the proposed amendment was unnecessary as the plea was already drafted in the original reply.
The revision petition and the pending application for amendment are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 22 of 2010. Date of decision: 2.7.2010.
Surjan Singh ….. Petitioner.
Vs.
Sandeep Sahni …. Respondent.
Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate.
Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) .
This revision has been directed against the order dated 29.12.2009 passed by learned Rent Controller, Shimla in case No. 49-2 of 2007.
Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?
…2…
Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The petitioner cannot and is not entitled to purchase the property in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
…3…
There is no merit in the revision, which is accordingly dismissed so also the pending application.
July 2, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), ( Hem ) Judge.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for amendment of pleadings is permitted when the proposed plea was already taken in the original reply.
Whether the pending application for amendment requires adjudication in the revision petition.
Whether there is any merit in the revision filed against the Rent Controller's order dismissing the application.
Surjan Singh
Sandeep Sahni
Kuldip Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
