Back
1986 Supreme(P&H) 171
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Gokal Chand Mital, J.
Dr.Prem Raj Gupta
Versus
V.K.Chopra
C.R. No. 3744 of 1985,
Decided On : MAY 23, 1986
Supervening facts can be considered in matters of amendment of pleadings, and parties should be given opportunity to respond to amended pleadings.
Headnote:
Amendment of Replication - Rent Control - The court allowed the application for the amendment of the replication, citing previous decisions that supervening facts can be considered in such matters. The tenant was also allowed to file a rejoinder to the amended replication, and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed the application for the amendment of the replication and remitted the matter to the Rent Controller for further proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for the amendment of the replication deserved to be allowed, and the tenant should be allowed to file a rejoinder to the amended replication.
Issues: Application for amendment of replication, filing of rejoinder, remittance of matter to Rent Controller
Ratio Decidendi: Supervening facts can be considered in such matters, parties should be given opportunity to respond to amended pleadings
Final Decision: The matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for further proceedings, with directions for the parties to file their responses and for the Rent Controller to send the evidence to the Court within six months.
Gokal Chand Mital, J.
1. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view the application for the amendment of the replication deserves to be allowed. There are some decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court saying that in such matters supervening facts can always be taken notice of by the Court in deciding the case. In this case, the facts, which came into being after the filing of the ejectment petition, were noticed by the Courts below but they could not be properly projected because of the want of pleadings on behalf of the landlord and for that reason even whole evidence could not come on the record. Keeping that proposition in view, the application for amended of the replication is hereby allowed. The landlord has already filed the amendment replication.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the tenant is right is suggesting that his client may be allowed to file rejoinder to the amended replication so that his client may be able to take the pleas available to him. Since this prayer is reasonable, the learned counsel for the landlord could not seriously oppose it.
3. In this view of the matter, this matter is remitted to the Rent Controller and the parties, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 10.6.1986. The tenant is directed to file his reply to the amended replication on 10.6.1986 before the Rent Control. If for any reason, the tenant is not able to file the reply on that date, only one more opportunity would be granted to the tenant for doing so. Thereafter, the new matters covered by the amended replication would be enquired into by the Rent Controller by giving opportunity to the landlord to lead evidence in affirmative and to tenant in rebuttal. Similarly, in case reply to the amended replication is filed any new matter covered thereby, the tenant to lead evidence in affirmative and to the landlord in rebuttal. The Rent Controller will send the evidence recorded by him alongwith the records of the case to this Court. The report be submitted by him to this Court within six months of the filing of the reply to the amended replication.
4. The records of the Rent Controller alongwith the amended replication be sent to the Rent Controller forthwith so as to reach there before the date fixed. Appeal remanded.
