HARI CHAND Vs. BALWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and respondent No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 12 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent No. 1, for the repair of the premises in their possession and in the alternative they prayed that they may be allowed to repair the premises at the cost of respondent No. 1. In that petition, an amendment application was given by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 to the following effect :-

(2.) THE learned Rent Controller rejected the application holding that it was a belated one and when the petitioner and respondent No. 2 did not lead any evidence, and when it was about to be closed, the said application was made. It is further observed by the learned Rent Controller that mere filing of a report does not reveal new fact to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 and that pleading cannot be allowed after obtaining a report as it is a matter of evidence.

(3.) IN the case of Suraj Mal v. State of Haryana, reported as 1992(2) CCC 549, it has been held by this Court that all amendments necessary to determine the questions in controversy have to be allowed and the duty of the Court is to determine the rights of the parties and not to punish them for the mistakes, if any. It has been further held therein that if the application filed is mala fide, withdraws the admissions made without explaining them, takes away the vested rights of the other party, the other party cannot be compensated in terms of costs or the claim has become time barred in time when he seeks an amendment, then in the peculiar facts of those cases, the amendment can be disallowed. However, it does not go against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 of this case.