Dismissed

M/S Leather Emporium v. Sohan Lal Sharma

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jan 2014CR/378/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed the challenge to the dismissal of a petition seeking permission to amend a written statement. The court held that allowing the amendment would enable the petitioner to set up a new case, which is not permissible once the trial has commenced.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of the amendment application was dismissed.

M/S Leather Emporium Vs Sohan Lal Sharma — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Civil Revision No. 378 of 2014 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Civil Revision No. 378 of 2014 Date of Decision: 20.1.2014.

M/s Leather Emporium

.......Petitioner

Versus

Pt. Sohan Lal Sharma

.......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 4.12.2013 whereby application moved by the petitioner for permission to amend the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC” for short), was dismissed.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the amendment sought by the petitioner in his written statement, was very necessary for the just decision of the case. In fact, petitioner, out of a bona fide belief, had earlier taken the plea that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, during the pendency of the petition, order dated 18.3.2013 had been passed in another litigation between the parties wherein it was held that relationship of landlord and tenant exits between the parties. Therefore, by way of amendment, now the petitioner wanted to give up the objection qua relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.

¶16

Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.22 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶17

Civil Revision No. 378 of 2014 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

In the present case, respondent has filed petition under Section 13 of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 seeking ejectment of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. Petitioner in his written statement denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. However, now by way of amendment, petitioner wants to withdraw the objection taken by it that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Issues in the present case were framed on the pleadings of the parties. Respondent had examined one witness when the application for permission to amend the written statement was filed.

¶20

Order 6 Rule 17 CPC reads as under:-

¶21

Amendment of pleadings :- “The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such " terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties . ”

¶22

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.

¶23

Thus, in the present case, the application for permission to amend the written statement has been filed after trial has commenced. Petitioner knowingly took up the plea at the time of filing of the written statement that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Now petitioner wants to

¶24

Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.22 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

¶25

Civil Revision No. 378 of 2014 (O&M)

¶26

-3-

¶27

take a summersault and take up the plea that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties basing reliance on order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18.3.2013. Thus, petitioner now wants to build a new case. In the facts of the present case, learned Rent Controller rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as the petitioner by way of amendment could not be allowed to set up a new case.

¶28

No ground for interference is made out.

¶29

Dismissed.

¶30

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶31

January 20, 2014 Gurpreet

¶32

Singh Gurpreet 2014.01.22 16:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

M/S Leather Emporium v. Sohan Lal Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Leather Emporium v. Sohan Lal Sharma

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

Ranjit Singh Vs Lehamber Singh

Hira Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Vidya Mahankali Rao Vs Sandeep Dutt and Ors.

Shri Paras Ram Vs Mohan Lal Gupta

Satish Kumar etc. Vs Gurdev Singh

Sharwan Bainiwal Vs Gursharan Singh