ORDER : By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged two orders, both dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-5), passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Suratgarh, whereby two applications in two separate suits filed by petitioners-defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants for amendment of the written statement have been rejected. Since facts are analogous and issues raised therein are common, for brevity, recitals are taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10579/2013. 2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the petition. 2.1 Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the petitioners, alleging, inter alia that on 02.04.2008, a decree was passed by learned Additional Dist. Judge No.2, Sri Ganganagar camp, Suratgarh through which the shop in question situated at Goyal Chowk came in the share of respondent-plaintiff. It was further alleged that the said premises were rented to defendant No.1 who used to pay rent to the brother-in-law (devar) of the plaintiff, namely, Sh. Ravi Mohan. It was alleged that the defendant No.1 was informed about the said decree in the first week of May, 2008 and was requested to pay rent to the plaintiff as per the prevalent market rate. However, defendant No.1 neither paid the rent as per the prevalent market rate nor met the plaintiff. In December 2008, when the plaintiff approached defendant No.1, he denied the title of the plaintiff as the landlord and also refused to pay rent. It was further alleged that the plaintiff required the said shop for her bona fide requirements. Therefore, the present suit (Annexure-1) was filed for recovery of arrears of rent and eviction. 2.2 The defendants-petitioners filed the written statement (Annexure-2), refuting the averments made in the plaint. It was stated that the shop in question was taken on rent from Dr. G.D. Goyal approximately 40 years ago, and following his demise, Ravi Mohan Goyal became their landlord. It was further alleged that they have been paying the rent to Ravi Mohan. The averments regarding bonafide need and arrears of rent were also denied. 2.3 After the suit was filed, petitioners obtained the decree dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-3). A perusal of the said decree shows that the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise and the property was partitioned only between Nina Goyal and Ravi Mohan Goyal, with the rest of the parties refusing to take any share. 2.3 After the suit was filed, petitioners obtained the decree dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure-3). A perusal of the said decree shows that the suit was decreed on the basis of compromise and the property was partitioned only between Nina Goyal and Ravi Mohan Goyal, with the rest of the parties refusing to take any share. A perusal of the said decree also reveals that the said decree is only a preliminary decree and if any party wishes to obtain a final decree in lieu of the preliminary decree, he/she will be required to submit the required stamps. 2.4 Later on, the petitioners came to know that the said decree is a collusive decree and has been obtained by concealing the registered partition-deed dated 30.03.1976 and without impleading all the legal heirs as party defendants; in fact, the sisters of husband of plaintiff Nina Goyal were impleaded as defendants. The petitioners also learned that the legal heirs of Dr. Ganpal Goyal filed a suit for cancellation of said decree in the year 2010, in which an interim order was passed. Thus, the decree, on the basis of which the present suit was filed is only a preliminary decree and final decree has not been passed as the required stamp has not been paid and till the final decree is passed, no right accrues to the plaintiff-respondent. 2.5 Petitioners were not aware about the aforesaid facts. They came to know about the said facts only on 05.02.2013, when Seema Goyal came to the Court of Additional Dist. Judge, Suratgarh in connection with the date of hearing of the suit filed by her for cancellation of collusive decree dated 02.04.2008 and the counsel for Seema Goyal informed the petitioners about these facts. Under such circumstances, petitioners could not incorporate these facts in the written statement. Therefore, the petitioners submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC (Annexure-4) for amendment of the written statement to bring aforesaid new facts on record. 2.6 The suit is at a nascent stage and even the cross-examination from the plaintiff has not yet started. 2.7 Respondent-plaintiff did not file any reply to the said application. 2.8 Learned trial Court vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure5), rejected the said application, stating that in the present suit, the question about the ownership of the shop in question is not required to be examined. Hence, the instant petition. 3. 2.7 Respondent-plaintiff did not file any reply to the said application. 2.8 Learned trial Court vide order dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure5), rejected the said application, stating that in the present suit, the question about the ownership of the shop in question is not required to be examined. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners-defendants and has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in it properly and has committed material irregularity. 4. Learned counsel further states that the learned Court below has made a serious error in rejecting the application and asserting that the fact of the decree dated 02.04.2008 was already mentioned in the plaint itself, implying awareness on the part of the petitioner. While recording this finding, learned Court below has not considered the fact that the petitioner was not unaware that the said decree is collusive decree and was obtained by concealing the registered partition-deed dated 30.03.1976. Additionally, the petitioner was not made aware that all the legal heirs were not impleaded as party defendants; in fact, the sisters of the husband of the plaintiff, Nina Goyal, were impleaded as defendants. The petitioners also later came to know that legal heirs of Dr. Ganpal Goyal filed a suit for the cancellation of said decree in 2010, in which an interim order has also been passed. Furthermore, it was revealed that the decree, on the basis of which the present suit was filed is only a preliminary decree and a final decree has not been passed as the stamp has not been paid and till the final decree is passed, no right accrues to the plaintiff-respondent. 5. Learned counsel also contends that petitioners were unaware about the aforesaid facts until 05.02.2013, when Seema Goyal approached the Court of Additional Dist. Judge, Suratgarh in connection with the date of hearing of the suit filed by her for cancellation of collusive decree dated 02.04.2008 and counsel for Seema Goyal then apprised the petitioners of these facts. Under such circumstances, the petitioners, being unaware, could not earlier incorporate these facts in the written statement. Consequently, petitioners submitted an application for amendment of the written statement. 6. Under such circumstances, the petitioners, being unaware, could not earlier incorporate these facts in the written statement. Consequently, petitioners submitted an application for amendment of the written statement. 6. Learned counsel further asserts that the suit is at the initial stage and even the cross-examination from the plaintiff is yet to commence. There was thus no delay in filing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. However, the learned Court below, ignoring the material on record, rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The impugned order is, therefore, illegal and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned counsel further states that while it is true that in a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent, the question of ownership is not required to be looked into, but in the present case, plaintiff-respondent has claimed ownership on the basis of preliminary decree dated 02.04.2008 which is collusive and the suit for cancellation of the said decree has also been filed by Seema Goyal. Even while obtaining the said decree, the earlier registered partition-deed dated 30.03.1976 was deliberately concealed by which the partition of the property had already taken place. Thus, the plaintiff -respondent lacks locus standi in the matter. Nevertheless, the learned court below has failed to consider this pivotal aspect of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the respondent -plaintiff also on his own did not disclose that the said decree is only a preliminary decree and final decree has been passed. Furthermore, the plaintiff also did not disclose that the suit for cancellation of said decree has been filed, in which an interim order has also been granted. Thus, the plaintiff has not approached the learned trial Court with clean hands. The petitioners became aware of these facts recently. Said facts are essential to be taken on record for proper adjudication of the case and therefore, the petitioners filed an application for amendment written statement. The learned trial Court failed to consider this aspect of the matter in right perspective. 9. Learned counsel further states that learned Court below has also not considered that these facts are very relevant and go to the root of the matter. Furthermore, they do not even change the character of the suit. Therefore, the learned Court below has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners-defendants. 10. 9. Learned counsel further states that learned Court below has also not considered that these facts are very relevant and go to the root of the matter. Furthermore, they do not even change the character of the suit. Therefore, the learned Court below has committed grave error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners-defendants. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent strenuously opposes the present petition and supports the impugned order. He argues that the same is based on correct reasoning, as contained therein. 11. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the case file. 12. It transpires that the family members of the landlord have already sought the matter to be adjudicated by the competent Court vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.2008 rendered in Civil Suit No.28/2005. It is though stated that the said judgment and decree are under challenge before the first appellate Court. The said decree is still under some cloud, in view of the subsequent suit bearing No.17/2009 seeking a declaration that the earlier decree is stated to be collusive. A prayer has been made therein that the same be declared as null and void on the ground of alleged fraud. Whatever be the final outcome qua the title of the property, the rent will be payable to the landlord in accordance with the outcome thereof. 13. Trite law it is that procedure is a handmaid of justice and, ought not be given precedence at the cost of subjugation of substantive justice. They cannot be allowed to thwart real and substantial justice between the parties. The valuable right of litigants to establish their cases by amending the written statement ought not to be taken away by the Court except in a case of their deliberate omission/failure to amend written statement more so if the other side can be compensated by costs. Prejudice would indeed be caused to petitioner herein, unless afforded an opportunity to amend written statement. Trial in the suit may lead to unjust consequences in the absence of an opportunity to the petitioners-defendants to amend written statement. 14. Prejudice would indeed be caused to petitioner herein, unless afforded an opportunity to amend written statement. Trial in the suit may lead to unjust consequences in the absence of an opportunity to the petitioners-defendants to amend written statement. 14. What boils down from the above narrative of the facts is that merely due to an ostensible dispute qua the status of the landlord inter se other family members, the petitioners-tenant has not only stopped paying the rent but also, by virtue of an interim stay granted by this Court, further proceedings before the Rent Controller have also been stalled for the past ten years. As far as the petitioners are concerned, their status is that of a tenant and they are bound to pay the rent for the premises, which is being used by them during the pendency of the proceedings pending before the civil Court qua the dispute over the title. Be that as it may, it is the settled position that it is not for the rent controller to adjudicate on the controversy of the title of the property in question, rather, it is for the competent civil Court vested with the jurisdiction to render its findings thereupon. 15. In the overall premise, the proposed amendment will since not prejudice the rights of the landlord and it is only being done to bring on record the pending controversy, inter se family members. To that extent, I see no harm as to why the proposed amendment be not allowed. Accordingly, the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment of the written statement is allowed. Both the impugned orders dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-5) are set aside. Amended written statement, if already filed, shall be taken on record, if not filed, needful be done within a period of four weeks from today. 16. Since the proceedings have stalled at the instance of the petitioners before the Court below, the proposed amendment is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/-. 17. It is made clear that the petitioners-tenant shall deposit the arrears of admitted rent before the learned Rent Controller which shall be kept in an interest-bearing account and be disbursed after the conclusion of the proceedings before learned Rent Controller to the landlord. 18. 17. It is made clear that the petitioners-tenant shall deposit the arrears of admitted rent before the learned Rent Controller which shall be kept in an interest-bearing account and be disbursed after the conclusion of the proceedings before learned Rent Controller to the landlord. 18. It is also made clear that any amount received by the landlord, who has been arrayed as a respondent before the Rent Controller shall be given indemnity that in case, there is another contender qua the same rent, he shall be responsible for settling the said dispute. 19. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 21. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.