JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The extant Civil Revision Petition is directed against the orders recorded by learned Appellate Authority on 19th March, 2015, upon Parvinder Kumar's (petitioner herein) application, constituted therebefore, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, it declined him leave to incorporate in his reply, averments (a) of, his occupying the demised premises as a licencee, (b) his being amenable to eviction therefrom, upon, the landlord concerned, instituting a civil suit for eviction against him. The aforesaid application was hence filed at a belated stage. 2. Before proceeding to determine, the validity of the impugned pronounced recorded by the learned Appellate Authority, it is imperative to extract all germane thereto facts; (a) of, the landlord in his apposite eviction petition, in apposite column No.16 thereof, declaring Parvinder Kumar, the petitioner herein, to be occupying, with his consent the demised premises as a subletee; (b) in reply thereto the aforesaid Parvinder Kumar, did not make any specific contention, for his hence repudiating the aforesaid declaration, occurring, in apposite column No.16 of the eviction petition. (c) Ex. AW1/E comprising a verdict recorded by the learned Appellate Authority in Rent Appeal No. 1-R/14 of 2012, wherein, landlord Sain Ram Jhingta and petitioner herein Parvinder Kumar, ARE respectively arrayed as appellant and respondent, making, a graphic declaration, in paragraph No.17, of Parvinder Kumar being a valid sub tenant in the demised premises, (d) given his occupations thereof, as, a sub tenant being under a valid written consent of the landlord. (e) In paragraph No.17 of Ex.AW1/E, a pronouncement occurring, of, the aforesaid conclusion arising from the Appellate Authority concerned, making, an interpretation of the apposite rent deed, borne in Ex.PW4/A. 3. (e) In paragraph No.17 of Ex.AW1/E, a pronouncement occurring, of, the aforesaid conclusion arising from the Appellate Authority concerned, making, an interpretation of the apposite rent deed, borne in Ex.PW4/A. 3. The aforesaid conclusions occurring in the afore-referred exhibits, were, contrarily strived to be ridden of their efficacy, by the aforesaid Parvinder Kumar, only during, the pendency of an apposite appeal before the learned Appellate Authority, directed, against the pronouncement recorded by the learned Rent Controller in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 2013, (i) by his therebefore belatedly casting, an application constituted under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, wherein, he concerted, to obtain leave of the Appellate Authority concerned, to incorporate in his reply, Averments, (a) of his holding the demised premises as a licencee; (b) his landlord concerned being entitled to seek his eviction therefrom by instituting a regular suit, for possession before the Civil Court concerned. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein has with much fervor, made a vibrant espousal, before this Court that even if his application cast, under the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, stood belatedly instituted before the learned Appellate Authority, (i) ipso facto, thereupon, the declining of relief to one Parvinder Kumar was not valid, given the leave as sought, for, incorporation in the apposite reply, filed by Parvinder Kumar, (ii) the aforesaid averments being just and essential for clinchingly resting the entire controversies, emerging, inter se the parties at contest. 5. For testing the vigour of the espousals addressed before this Court, by the counsel for the petitioner, extractions of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is called for, provisions whereof extracted hereinafter:- “17. 5. For testing the vigour of the espousals addressed before this Court, by the counsel for the petitioner, extractions of the provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC is called for, provisions whereof extracted hereinafter:- “17. Amendment of Pleadings.- the Court may at any stage at 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: 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.” Thereunder statutory empowerment, is bestowed upon courts of law, to permit incorporation of apposite amendments, in the pleadings of the litigant concerned, imperatively, when such amendment (a) would enable the court concerned, to, clinchingly determine the apt controversies, erupting, inter se the litigants concerned; (b) the amendments in respect of incorporations whereof, leave of the court concerned is sought, being necessary for determining the real questions in controversy. Bearing in mind the apt statutory principles besides bearing in mind the principles occurring in a catena of judicial verdicts, of liberality being grantable vis-a-vis the litigants concerned, to, through amendments hence incorporate pleadings in the apposite written statement, thereupon, this Court for reasons ascribed hereafter, declines, vis-a-vis Parvinder Kumar, the petitioner herein, the relief of this Court, ordering, for quashing of the impugned order; (a) given, the controversyies, upon which, a clinching determination is enjoined besides when a concomitant imperative necessity is cast, upon, Courts, to grant leave for its incorporation, visibly appertaining to the status of one Parvinder Kumar in the demised premises; (b) the controversies, in respect thereto, being rather earlier clinchingly rested besides judicially determined, under, verdicts pronounced by the learned Appellate Authority concerned, in a lis wherein both Parvinder Kumar and the Landlord were engaged, verdict whereof is borne in Ex.AW1/E, (c) wherein a graphic declaration is borne of Parvinder Kumar, occupying the demised premises, in the capacity of his being a sub tenant therein, tritely with the written consent of the landlord. (d) As aforestated with the learned Appellate Authority in paragraph No.17, of its pronouncement, comprised in Ex.AW1/E, making, an interpretation of rent deed borne inEx.PW4/A, thereupon, the endeavour made by the learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner herein, for, its being re-interpreted, by this Court, besides upon its apposite re-interpretation, its making revelations, of, Parvinder Kumar, occupying, the demised premises, as a licencee, is not permissible at all, (e) given hence the binding conclusive verdict borne in Ex.AW1/E, wherein, a clear declaration of the status, of Parvinder Kumar, in the demised premises is visibly borne, being thereupon impermissibly hence rendered nugatory. (f). The pronouncement made in Ex.AW1/E, acquires conclusive binding effect, with respect to the pronouncement made therein vis-a-vis the status of Parvinder Kumar, as a sub tenant in the demised premises, conspicuously, with the written consent of the landlord, significantly, hence the verdict borne in Ex.AW1/E is binding upon him, (g) whereupon he is estopped, to, alter his status therein, by his seeking leave of the Court, to, introduce in his reply to the apposite rent petition, an averment of his being a licencee in the demised premises. The aforesaid controversy with respect to the status of Parvinder Kumar, in the demised premises, being hence firmly rested by a judicial verdict borne in Ex. The aforesaid controversy with respect to the status of Parvinder Kumar, in the demised premises, being hence firmly rested by a judicial verdict borne in Ex. AW1/E, (h) thereupon, there is no surviving controversy in respect thereto inter se the contesting parties, (i) as a corollary, the imperative canon cast, in the substantive provisions of Order 6, Rule 17, of the CPC, whereby the Courts of law ARE permitted, to grant the apposite leave, to the litigant concerned, to incorporate in his pleadings, a contention not initially raised, standing anvilled (j) upon its incorporation being necessary for determining all the real questions or all controversies arising inter se the litigating parties, remains evidently not satiated, (k) given reiteratedly, the apt controversy iter se them, appertaining to the status of Parvinder Kumar, in the demised premises, being previously firmly rested, under, a clinching decision recorded, by the Appellate Authority concerned, decision whereof is borne in Ex.AW1/E, (l) also when the verdict borne therein, is binding upon Parvinder Kumar, thereupon, with no surviving controversy existing, in respect of the aforesaid facet, thereupon no leave can be granted to Parvinder Kumar, to, through, his deploying a stratagem, of, his instituting an application under the provisions Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, hence contrive to benumb its effect. 6. 6. Furthermore, the mandate of the proviso engrafted underneath the substantive provisions of Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC, proviso whereof stands extracted hereinabove, with utmost reinforced vigour, deprives, Parvinder Kumar, to, strive to obtain the leave of the Court concerned, for his incorporating in his reply, to, the apposite rent petition, averments which were not earlier reared therein, (i) reiteratedly when the pleas as strived to be now raised, appertain to controversies qua which a firm verdict is already pronounced, (ii) conspicuously, when the aforesaid concert is belatedly made nor when it is espoused, in the apposite application, of, despite exercise of due diligence, Parvinder Kumar, being unaware of the previous verdict or of the apposite rent deed, (iii) significantly, hence with the mandate, of, the proviso occurring underneath Order 6, Rule 17, of the CPC, visiting its ill effects upon the instant application, also when apparently, he was arrayed as a party in the previously pronounced verdict, besides when he omitted to assail it, renders it to acquire conclusivity, thereupon, also the findings occurring in paragraph No.17 of Ex.AW1/E are binding upon him, leaving him incapacitated to at a belated stage hence benumb their effects. 7. In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly. The impugned order is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed off. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.