HARI KRISHAN Vs. ASHOK KUMAR KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 02.08.2017 whereby the application of the respondents for amendment in the plaint has been allowed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment ought not to have been allowed as it is against the admission of respondent No. 1-landlord in his cross-examination and it was allowed at a belated stage when the evidence had been closed and the case was fixed for arguments.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, contends that the amendment was sought only to plead the basic ingredients of Section 13 (3) (a) (i) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 ('Act' - for short). No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the amendment and he will get adequate opportunity to lead evidence with regard to his case. He has relied upon the judgments of Coordinate Benches of this Court in the cases of Sukhwinder Singh vs. Darshan Lal, 2014 (2) L.A.R. 225; Pawan Kumar vs. Ravinder Singh, 2018 (2) Law Herald (P&H) 989; Mohan Lal vs. Rakesh Kumar Bhakoo and another, 2006 (1) L.A.R. 666; Raman Mal vs. Faquir Chand and ors, 1984 (1) Rent Control Reporter 275 and Madhi Mal vs. Sat Pal, 1979 (1) Rent Control Reporter 414