Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 144 (PNJ)

Gurcharanjit Singh v. Baldev Singh

2013-02-06

JASWANT SINGH

body2013
Jaswant Singh, J. 1. Petitioner (tenant) is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 05.01.2013 (P-6) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement has been dismissed. In brief, facts of the case are that the landlord filed an ejectment application against the petitioner (tenant) on the ground of personal use and occupation as well as on non payment of arrears of rent since the year 2008. 2. Upon notice, petitioner (tenant) filed his written statement whereby he had admitted his relationship with the landlord. Thereafter the landlord led his entire evidence and closed the same. Consequently, the ejectment application was fixed for tenant's evidence when the present application (P-4) was moved by the petitioner (tenant) for amendment of written statement whereby he sought amendment to the effect that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated 5.1.2013 (P-6) dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner (tenant) cannot be permitted to withdraw his admission and take a contrary stand at this stage when the same is fixed for his evidence. Aggrieved against the same, present petition has been preferred. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner (tenant) and have gone through the case filed carefully with his able assistance. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate the fact that it is by now settled position of law that a party can explain admission and take inconsistent plea in his amended application even after taking a definite stand in the written statement. It has also been argued that the respondent (landlord) has also filed another ejectment application against the present petitioner in which he has specifically denied any relationship of landlord and tenant among the parties which duly reveals that from the very beginning the petitioner has taken a specific plea that no relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. Thus, the learned Rent Controller ought to have considered this aspect of the matter as well as settled law that rule of amendment is an essential rule of justice, equity and good conscious and power of amendment could be exercised in the large interest of doing full and complete justice with the parties. Thus, the learned Rent Controller ought to have considered this aspect of the matter as well as settled law that rule of amendment is an essential rule of justice, equity and good conscious and power of amendment could be exercised in the large interest of doing full and complete justice with the parties. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance upon Gautam Sarup v. Anand Sarup & Ors. 2006 (4) RCR (Civil) 248 & Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar & Anr. : 2009 (2) RCR (Rent) 179. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner (tenant) and perusing the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that present revision petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. By way of present amendment, the petitioner (tenant) has taken a completely new stand and has tried to resile from his earlier admission made in his original written statement. It is also evident from the record that the respondent (landlord) has already concluded his entire evidence and the matter was fixed for evidence of the petitioner (tenant). The present ejectment petition was filed in the year 2009 which is much after the amendment in the CPC whereby proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been added. The judgment that has been relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioner i.e. Gautam Sarup's case (supra) is not at all applicable as the same pertains to a civil suit that was filed prior to the amendment made in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and thus the same cannot be at parity with the present ejectment application which was admittedly been filed in the year 2009 i.e. after the amendment to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The second judgment in Sushil Kumar Jain's case (supra) is also not applicable to the present case. In the said case it has been clearly held that amendment of written statement can be sought before commencement of the trial where issues have not been framed and documents have not been adduced. However, in the present case, as stated earlier, the respondent (landlord) has already concluded his evidence and the matter is now fixed for evidence of the petitioner (tenant) when the present application was moved. However, in the present case, as stated earlier, the respondent (landlord) has already concluded his evidence and the matter is now fixed for evidence of the petitioner (tenant) when the present application was moved. It has been time and again held that proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is mandatory in nature and the same cannot be taken lightly and be bypassed as and when the court feels appropriate. There has to be a very strong circumstances for the court to allow an amendment after the trial has begun i.e. issues have been framed and evidence has been led. In the present case, the respondent (landlord) has already completed his entire evidence and thus, the trial for all purposes has already commenced and is rather at fag end of conclusion. An admission can be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances and the same can be allowed when certain explanation is required so as to substantiate the plea. However, a party who has admitted a certain fact cannot be allowed to take a complete 'U' turn and abandon his earlier stand and take a complete new stand especially when the landlord led his evidence keeping in view the admissions made by the petitioner (tenant). In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/- to be deposited with State Legal Services Authority, Punjab.