Dismissed

M/S I World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Sahni

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Nov 2021CR/2876/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order dismisses Writ Petition challenging an order refusing leave to amend a petition due to alleged procedural defects. The court holds that the trial court correctly found that the objection regarding verification is refuted by precedent and other defects do not warrant interference.

What did the court decide?

High Court rejected petitioner's challenge to the dismissal of the application and dismissed the writ petition. Petitioner allowed to remove procedural defects by amendment.

M/S I World Business Solutions Pvt… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

111 2^nd case

¶2

�� 

¶3

�� !"!�#$��%�&'�(��)��

¶4

***+"��,�(-��."!#�""�/�-.�!�#��(!%��0��1�**

¶5

2��!�!�#�(�

¶6

��

¶7

�(%!#��/�3#!� 111��"4�#��#��

¶8

��$��5�0���1��/��*��

�(�"�#�$� ��

66666�

��*��)��1�7��08

�� !�� "�#��$%��&��'��(��)��$%�� $%������(�� $%��$��(��

¶13

�� +��

¶14

��

¶15

No interference is called for in the order assailed herein,

¶16

which is premised, inter alia , on the following reasoning:

¶17

“XXX XXX XXX

¶18

5. By way of preferring the instant application the respondents have sought the rejection of the petition on the ground that the compliance of Rule 4, 5 and 6 of the Haryana Urban (control of Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1976 has not been made by the petitioner. However, the said contentions of the respondents have been refuted by the petitioner. It is relevant to mention here that qua Rule 4 the respondents have only mentioned that the said Rule has not been followed by the petitioner in the petition but at the same time it has not been explained or disclosed as to how come the petitioner has not complied the Rule 4. As such, it seems a vague objection of the respondents.

¶19

Regarding the Rule 5, it is submitted by the respondents that the verification of the petition is not in

¶20

VANDANA 2021.11.30 05:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

consonance with the statutory provision of Rule 5. To this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case BhikjiKeshao Joshi and Another Versus Brij Lal Nand Lal Biyani and others AIR 1955 Supreme Court SC 610 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has clearly held that if a verification clause refers to the entirety of a petition then the absence of enumeration of the various paragraphs therein cannot be considered to be a defect. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that even in cases where the verification of plaint is defective it should not be rejected but an order should be made for its amendment. The Supra authority completely fits into the situation occurred in the instant case.

¶22

Now, coming to the factum of non-compliance of Rule 6 as alleged by the respondents that the description and boundaries of the premises in question has not been disclosed/given by the petitioner. To this, the petitioner has taken a stand that he has already mentioned the name and number along with the address of the premises in question in para No.1 of the petition which is evident and as such, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not complied Rule 6.

¶23

Regarding the objections of 50% ownership of petitioner qua the premises in question it is alleged by the petitioner that the share of the joint owners of premises in question is still undivided being brothers and the respondents have entered into separate lease deeds in respect of the same. The aforesaid clarification given by petitioner in reply to the instant application speaks volume about the objection taken by the respondents. Otherwise also, it is not a case wherein the tenants/respondents have denied their tenancy under the petitioner being their landlord. The lease deed on record executed between petitioner and respondents is evident of the fact that the premises in question were taken on lease by the respondents from the petitioner. Since, the respondents being tenants are occupying the premises in question therefore it does not lie in their mouth as to which of the 50% share the petitioner was supposed to mention the boundaries to identify the suit property. It seems a clever ploy on the part of the respondents to allege such facts which are completely unwarranted when they are already occupying the premises in question being tenants.

¶24

6. As such, the application is denuded of force and is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to remove the procedural defects of verification of petition by way of amendment. Nothing herein before discussed shall have any bearing on the merits of the case.”

¶25

A perusal of above leaves no manner of doubt that there is no

¶26

irregularity either in facts or in law, so as to exercise extraordinary revisional

¶27

jurisdiction vested with this court.

¶28

VANDANA 2021.11.30 05:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶29

There is no room for interference in the aforesaid valid reasons

¶30

recorded by the trial Court, with which I am in agreement.

¶31

Dismissed.

¶32

7��*��8 ��

¶33

��%�&'�(��)�� ��
,��-��.�	/��-0��
,��$��.�	/��-0�

¶34

VANDANA 2021.11.30 05:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S I World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S I World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Sahni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Case details

Similar cases

Mohit Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ashwani Kumar Vs Surjit Kaur and Others

Subhash Soni Vs State of Haryana and Others

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S I World Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sanjeev Sahni

Ashwani Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Another