Revision against an order declining amendment of rent petition. Court held amendments irrelevant to dispute cannot be allowed and dismissed the revision.
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.
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009
- 1-
IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009 Date of Decision : 13.09.2010
Krishan Lal Bareja
.......... Petitioner
Versus
Narain Dass & another
...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
Present : Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Virk, Advocate for the respondents.
VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Panipat vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition stands declined.
The petitioner in a rent petition moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the petition by inserting the following :-
“3(a) That the father of the petitioner during his lifetime had worked as Coolie at Railway Station Panipat for a period of 30/35 years. The father of the petitioner had engaged his son Narain Das i.e. respondent No. 1 as Clerk at Railway Station, Panipat with some
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009
- 2-
private contractor. As and when the officials of higher authorities of North Railway Delhi inspected the Railway Station, Panipat, they found the services of father of the petitioner satisfactory and as such, they intended to offer a Railway Ticket ghar on commission basis to be run by the father of the petitioner in his shop and in the month of April, 1995, the father of petitioner obtained permission for running the Railway Ticket Ghar at Panipat on commission basis in the name of Sunil Kumar, the son of petitioner, but unfortunately, in the month of October, 1995, the father of petitioner was expired. After six months, the respondent No.1 told the petitioner that some Railway Officers from Delhi are coming, so the petitioner asked the respondent No.1 to make a request before the said officers for granting four years time for starting the said Railway Ticket Ghar as the education of son of petitioner namely Sunil Kumar would be completed after four years and the said request of the petitioner and respondent No.1 was accepted. In the year 2000, the petitioner requested the respondent No.1 for visiting at Delhi to meet the said Railway Officers for obtaining the approval for railway Ticket Ghar, the respondent No.1 for visiting at Delhi to meet the said Railway Officers for obtaining the approval for Railway Ticket Ghar, the respondent No.1 told the petitioner that the said Railway Officers have been transferred and the present officers at North Railway Zone would be computerized which will take
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009
- 3-
about four or five years and after the computerization of the North Railway Zone, the necessary permission would be granted for running the computerized Railway ticket Ghar. But the respondent No.1 by putting the undue benefits in collusion with some railway officrs succeeded in obtaining the Railway Ticket Ghar in the name of his son i.e. respondent No.1 instead of the son of petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the said fact when the respondent No.1 prepared to start a Railway Ticket Ghar in the shop No.4, demised premises. After coming to know about the said fact, the petitioner protested against the said illegal acts and actions of the respondent No.1 and interest in all the shops being one of the legal heir of late Sh. Ram Dass and whole of the property left by Sh. Ram Dass would be partitioned among all the legal heirs would start their work and thus restrained the respondent No.1 to start the Railway Ticket Ghar in the demised shop. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 in the demised shop. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 in order to reconcile the matter called the petitioner at the house of sister Gian Devi, so, the petitioner alongwith his wife visited the house of his sister Gian Devi where the respondents and the sister Gian Devi were present. The respondent No.1 felt apology for all his committed offences by bowing down in the feet of the petitioner and assured the petitioner to partition the joint ancestral property after the inauguration of
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009
- 4-
shop of Railway ticket Ghar very soon and the respondent No.1 further assured the petitioner that he will pay Rs. 10000/- per month as rent to the petitioner for the demised shop till partition as per family customs as the father of the petitioner and respondent No.1 used to receive the rent of shop from his own son by treating him as tenant. The respondent No.2 and the sister Gian Devi also assured the petitioner that the respondent No.1 will make the payment of above said monthly rent to the petitioner. After the death of Sh. Ram Dass, the petitioner is the eldest one in the family and thus has stepped into the shoe of his father. The respondent No.1 has taken the demised shop from the petitioner as per family customs on rent as mentioned above. The petitioner intends to prove the fact that his father Sh. Ram Dass during his life time had rented out the shop to his son Atam Parkash who later on committed default in making the payments of monthly rent and as such, the father of petitioner filed a petition against his son Atam Parkash before the Court of ld. Rent Controller, Panipat by engaging Sh. A.K. Wadhawan, Advocate, Panipat as his counsel.”
The learned trial Court declined the application on the ground, that the averments sought to be made by way of amendment were not ground for ejectment, nor could be treated to be relevant for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
- 5-
C . R. No. 7409 of 2009
law of amendment is very liberal, therefore, the learned trial Court should have allowed the amendment as prayed for as the case was at preliminary stage.
This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the face of it is misconceived, as under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the amendments which are necessary for adjudication of the dispute between the parties can be allowed at any stage of the proceedings, and not the pleadings which are totally irrelevant, and not connected with the dispute raised in the case.
No merit.
Dismissed.
13.09.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application to amend the petition by inserting unrelated averments regarding the dispute's origin should be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC at the preliminary stage.
Whether amendments that are irrelevant and not connected with the dispute raised in the case should be permitted to be adjudicated.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Krishan Lal Bareja
Narain Dass
another
Vinod K. Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
