PARSHOTAM LAL Vs. KRISHAN GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is filed against the order dated 27.04.2018, passed by the Rent Controller, Sangrur, vide which, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 67 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the pleadings, was dismissed.

(2.) A perusal of the said order shows that the said application was dismissed by observing that the subsequent events have no reasonable nexus with the claim mentioned in the petition and that the petitioner failed to move the application for amendment at the initial stage and in any case, it was open to him to base his claims at the initial stage itself in case he wanted to open the shop for selling the medicines by his son and not for the business of lubrication as he knew the same and is not a subsequent event. He had admitted this fact in his cross examination. Now, it would amount to recalling the admissions made by the petitioner during the cross examination.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent too while vehemently opposing the present revision petition, submitted that the petitioner had made certain admissions during his cross examination and therefore, the subsequent amendment of the pleadings would amount to recalling of the admissions, which would affect the rights and evidence led by the respondent/tenant and further the said amendment would also relate to the time when the petition was filed.