Dismissed

Ram Lal & Sons v. Bhushan Kumar Jain & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Jul 2013CR/3938/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision against the declining of an application to amend the written statement. The High Court held the amendment was sought after considerable delay without justification, finding the impugned order based on good reasons. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order declining to allow amendment to the written statement wasn't interfered with and revision petition dismissed.

Ram Lal & Sons Vs Bhushan Kumar Jain & Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Revision No.3938 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 5^th July, 2013

¶3

M/s Ram Lal & Sons and another

¶4

� Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Bhushan Kumar Jain and another

¶7

� Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶9

Present: Mr. Yogesh Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)

¶11

The respondents sought eviction of the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent and personal necessity. The said petition is being contested.

¶12

Vide impugned order, petitioner-tenant’s application for amendment has been declined.

¶13

As per the facts, earlier also the petitioner had moved an application for amendment of the written statement on 17.08.2011, which was allowed and the facts which now he wants to incorporate, relate back to 04.02.2011, and thus, it can be safely concluded that the facts which are now being sought to be incorporated in the written statement were very well to the notice of the tenant-petitioner. Despite the said fact, these facts were not incorporated at the time of moving first application for amendment dated 17.08.2011.

¶14

¶15

Civil Revision No.3938 of 2013 (O&M)

¶16

Not only this, thereafter, issues were framed and even the landlord is already leading his evidence.

¶17

It may further be seen that the present application is being filed after a considerable delay. No justification is forthcoming seeking amendment vide the instant application except to state that by oversight earlier the facts could not be incorporated.

¶18

No doubt, the provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice and are to be construed liberally in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is equally well settled that the provisions of law cannot be abused by a litigant to his benefit and the facts of this case do not warrant interference of this Court in the impugned order as the same is based upon good reasons.

¶19

No merit. Dismissed.

¶20

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶21

July 5, 2013 rps

Ram Lal & Sons v. Bhushan Kumar Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lal & Sons v. Bhushan Kumar Jain & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balbir Singh Walia @ Billu Vs Usha Rani

Director Archaeology & Museums Haryana Vs Kura Mal & Ors.

J.L. Wahi Vs R.P. Singh

M/S Up State Handloom Corp & Anr. Vs Manohar Singh & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Dina Nath

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agr. Hisar Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram