SUPREME SUPPLY CENTRE Vs. GURMINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 1/12/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar.

(2.) The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that the respondent (landlord herein) filed an ejectment petition under Sec. 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'Punjab Rent Act') for ejectment of the petitioners herein from property being Shop No.1 measuring 6 ft. x 14 ft. (ground floor). The ejectment was sought on the ground of arrears of rent as well as for bonafide personal necessity. The ejectment petition was filed on 19/4/2021. Thereafter written statement was filed by the petitioners herein and evidence was led. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement. The ground taken in the application was that when a new counsel was engaged, he pointed out that there was no reply which has been given to the averments made in para No.4(e), (f) and (g) and hence the petitioners sought permission to amend the written statement to the extent of introducing replies to para No.4(e), (f) and (g). The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 1/12/2023 holding that the application had been moved at a belated stage. It has also been noticed in the order that the arguments in the main petition had partly been addressed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the amendment is necessary as it was only when the new counsel was engaged that he pointed out that there was no denial to the averments made in para No.4(e), (f) and (g). It is further the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners do not intend to lead any evidence and intend only to introduce the reply to the said paragraphs in the written statement.