In CR-1417-2019(O&M)-PUNJ HC- In terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment of pleadings can be allowed only if it is necessary for determining real question of controversy between parties: P&H HC
Justice H.S. Madaan [24-01-2023]

Read Order: Mohammad Ilyas v. Mohammad Nazir

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 31, 2023:  While dealing with a revision petition, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment of pleadings can be allowed only if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties.

This revision petition before the Bench of Justice H.S. Madaan challenged the order of the Additional District Judge-cum-Appellate Authority, Sangrur via ide which an application filed by the appellant/respondent-tenant for amendment of the written statement, was dismissed.

The facts of the case are that the ejectment petition filed by the petitioner/landlord against the respondent-tenant with regard to the shop in dispute was allowed by Rent Controller, Malerkotla. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority, Sangrur, notice of which was given to the landlord arrayed as a respondent in the appeal, who had put in an appearance. 

During the course of proceedings, the appellant/tenant filed an application for amendment of written reply stating that it has come in evidence that the landlord was the owner in possession of three other shops and this fact was admitted by the landlord in his cross-examination. However, the submission made by the tenant’s counsel before Rent Controller was rejected for the reason that no such plea was taken in the written reply, therefore, the applicant/appellant wanted to amend the written reply.

The landlord/respondent resisted this application in the appeal. The Appellate Authority, Sangrur dismissed the application, leaving the appellant/tenant aggrieved, who filed the present revision petition. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clearly dilates 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'.

Furthermore, the Bench observed that in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, the amendment of pleadings can be allowed only if it is necessary for the purpose of determining the real question of controversy between the parties. 

In the present case, the Bench opined that the application was rightly declined by the Appellate Authority because if allowed it would have put the clock back resulting in stretching the proceedings further and the proposed amendment was not such without which the controversy between the parties cannot be adjudicated in an effective and proper manner. 

While dismissing the application, the Appellate Authority, Sangrur observed that these very contentions could be raised at the time of arguments in the appeal, the Bench noted while also adding that the Appellate Authority already protected the rights of the appellant/tenant stating that he can raise the plea in that regard during the course of arguments. 

“I find myself in agreement with the Appellate Authority, Sangrur and do not see any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, which might have warranted interference by this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction”, the Bench held while dismissing the petition.