Dharampal Mehmi Vs Sushma Rani

Th e present Civil Revision Petitio n has been filed by the petitio n er– tenant Dharam p al Mehmi, invoking the supervi s ory jurisdiction of this Court u n der Article 227 of t he Constitution of India, chall e nging the order dated 17.10.2 0 25 passed by the l e arned Rent Controller, Ludhia n a, whereby the application mo v ed by the petition e r under Order 6 Rule 17 re a d with Section 151 CPC see k ing amendment of the written statement in Ren t Petition No. 516 of 2019 ti t led ‘Sushma Rani v s. Dharampal Mehmi’ has been dismissed. 2. It is pleaded that during the p e ndency of the rent petition a nd particularly during the cross-examination of t h e petitioner–landlord, certain f a cts have come on r e cord which were not earlier wi t hin the knowledge of the appli c ant and which, acc o rding to him, go to the root o f the matter. It is averred that the petitioner–landlord appeared as PW-1 and dur i ng her cross-examination admi t ted that she is resi d ing in House No.B-34-4890, s ituated near Ranjit Model Sch o ol, Durga Puri, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, and f u rther admitted that the said h o use stands in the n a me of her husband and that t h e sale deed thereof is also in his TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶13

CR-9418-2025 (O&M) - 2 -

¶14

name. It is fur t her pleaded that the petitioner – landlord admitted that she is not having any oth e r residential house except the a f oresaid house and that her husb a nd is also not havi n g any other shop except the sui t property. 3. O n the basis of the aforesaid ans w ers given in cross-examination, the applicant alleg e s that the petitioner–landlord h a s intentionally concealed mat e rial facts while fili n g the eviction petition and has a lso filed a false affidavit clai m ing that she is not o ccupying any other residentia l or non-residential building in the urban area of L u dhiana.

¶15

It i s further alleged that the petiti o ner–landlord intentionally got the said residential h ouse transferred in her own na m e with a malafide intention to file the present evic t ion petition and to create a fals e plea of personal necessity. 5. It i s also pleaded that the petitio n er–landlord and her husband h ad taken a sum o f Rs.2,00,000/- from the applic a nt as security, which was red u ced into writing an d the original document is lying with the husband of the petitio n er– landlord, and t h at the present eviction petition has been filed with an intentio n to forfeit the said a mount.

¶16

It is pleaded that since the aforesa i d facts have surfaced during cr o ssexamination, th e applicant seeks to incorporate the same by way of amendme n t in the written stat e ment, both in the preliminary o bjections as well as on merits. I t is averred that the proposed amendments are necessary for proper adjudication o f the controversy an d that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner–landlord if the amendment is a l lowed. 7. O n these averments, prayer has been made to allow the applica t ion and permit the a pplicant to amend the written statement in terms of the prop o sed paragraphs ann e xed with the application.

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CR-9418-2025 (O&M) - 3 -

¶19

Si n ce the short controversy is in v olved in the present petition, no notice is requir e d to be issued to the respondent .

¶20

I h a ve given my thoughtful consid e ration to the submissions advanced by learned co u nsel for the petitioner and h ave carefully gone through the pleadings, the p roposed amendments, as well a s the stage of the proceedings. At the outset, it is evident that the application fo r amendment has been moved after commencement of trial and after the peti t ioner–landlord has already been examined and cross-examined as PW-1. There fo re, the proviso to Order 6 Rul e 17 CPC squarely a pplies, and the applicant is req u ired to demonstrate due dilige n ce, which is conspi c uously absent in the present ca s e. 10. A p erusal of the application reve a ls that the entire foundation of the proposed ame n dment rests upon certain ans w ers elicited from the petitio n er– landlord during her cross-examination. The ap p licant seeks to incorporate, by w ay of amendment, alleged admissions made du r ing cross-examination relatin g to ownership and p ossession of another residential house and other allied facts. 11. La w is well settled that facts whic h surface during cross-examina t ion do not furnish a valid or independent ground fo r amendment of pleadings. Cr o ssexamination is m eant to test the veracity of the pleadings already on record an d to impeach or sup p ort the case set up by the opposite party. Any admission, if m a de, becomes part o f the evidentiary record and i s required to be appreciated at the stage of final ar g uments while adjudicating the m erits of the case. 12. Th e applicant cannot be permitted to convert evidence into pleadi n gs. Allowing ame n dment on the basis of cro s s-examination would amount to permitting a party to restructure its defenc e after assessing the strength or

¶21

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CR-9418-2025 (O&M) - 4 -

¶23

weakness of th e evidence, which is impermis s ible in law. Such a course w o uld defeat the very p urpose of procedural discipline and fair trial.

¶24

M o reover, the facts sought to be i n corporated by way of amend m ent pertain to matters which were either already wi t hin the knowledge of the appli c ant or could have b een pleaded with reasonable d iligence at the time of filing the original written statement. The application doe s not disclose any subsequent e v ent occurring after the filing of the written st a tement which would necessi t ate amendment.

¶25

Th e proposed amendments are also not essential for determining the real controvers y between the parties, as the iss u es regarding bona fide require m ent and availabilit y of alternative accommodati o n are already subject matter of evidence. The a lleged admissions, if any, can v ery well be argued and appreci a ted without altering the pleadings. 15. It is thus apparent that the applicat i on has been filed with an inten t ion to fill up lacun a e exposed during trial and to d e lay the proceedings, rather tha n to assist the Court in effective adjudication of the d ispute. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no erro r or perversity in t h e order passed by the learn e d Rent Controller dismissing the application und e r Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Cons e quently, the present Civil Revi s ion Petition is foun d to be without any merit and is h ereby dismissed. 17. Pe n ding application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

January 12, 2026 (MANDEEP PANNU) tripti JUDGE Wheth e r speaking/non-speaking : Spea k ing Wheth e r reportable : Yes/ N o

¶27

TRIPTI SAINI 2026.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Dharampal Mehmi v. Sushma Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal Mehmi v. Sushma Rani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sham Lal Vs Shiv Parshad

Municipality Bathinda Vs Dwarka Dass Mittal

Raghbir Singh and Others Vs Lalit and Others

Gursahib Singh Vs Maan Singh (Since Deceased) Thr His Lrs and Ors.

Sandeep Sharma and Another Vs Sita Devi

Shalu Gupta Vs Falak Saini and Another