GOBIND GUPTA Vs. RITU CHOPRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by the tenant-petitioner under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby, the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure for amendment of the written statement has been dismissed.

(2.) The reasoning given by the Rent Controller in the impugned order primarily is that the issues were framed on 06.02.2016 and thereafter 3 witnesses had been examined in chief. The cross examination was being deferred and ultimately on 29.04.2016, the application had been filed for amendment. Resultantly, keeping in view the proviso under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, it was held that there was no due diligence that the said pleadings could not have been incorporated in the written statement at the initial stage. The facts were duly in the knowledge of the respondent and nothing had been stated as regarding the due diligence aspect. Resultantly, reliance was placed upon judgment of the Apex Court in Vidyabai and others Vs. Padamalatha and another, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 763 and J. Samuel and others Vs. Gattu Mahesh and others, 2012 (1) RCR (Civil) 903. It was, thus, held that the proviso was couched in a mandatory form and the Court was not to allow the application unless the conditions precedent were satisfied.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in another set of litigation, the same Rent Controller, vide order dated 12.05.2016 (Annexure P-6), had allowed the amendment application which was filed. She resultantly relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in Surender Kumar Sharma Vs. Makhan Singh, 2009(2) R.C.R.(Rent) 354 : 2009(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 597 : 2009 (10) SCC 626; Mahila Ramkali Devi and others Vs. Nandram (D) through L.Rs. and others, 2015 (5) RCR (Civil) 562 and judgment of this Court in 2016(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 192 : C.R. No. 4637 of 2015, Amar Singh Vs. Nirmal Singh and another decided on 11.04.2016 in support of her case to submit that the law of amendment is liberal and, therefore, the order of the Rent Controller is not justified.