The main legal point established in the judgment is that amendments to pleadings should not be allowed at a belated stage of the trial unless it is shown that the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of the trial.

JUDGMENT

Manjari Nehru Kaul , J. - The instant revision petition has been filed to impugn the dismissal of an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity 'the Rent Act'), for ejectment of the respondent from the demised premises.

2. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the father of the petitioners-landlord Onkar Singh, had filed a petition under Section 13 of the Rent Act on the ground of personal necessity, as the shop in dispute was required for the use and occupation of his son Gurjeet Singh and another ejectment petition too had been filed for the personal necessity of his second son i.e. Jaspal Singh qua another shop, which was under the tenancy of one Nirmal Kumar. During the pendency of the ejectment petitions, the father of the petitioners Onkar Singh expired, hence, they were impleaded as his legal heirs in the ejectment petition filed u/s 13 of the Rent Act. The ejectment petition was duly contested by the respondent(s). In their written statements, it was alleged that the petitioners-landlord had various other shops, which were lying vacant. A replication was, thereafter, filed by the petitioners-landlord, wherein, it was pleaded by them that the other commercial properties, which were under their ownership were not ideally located in comparison to the shop in dispute and still further, the shop was required for the personal necessity of Gurjeet Singh.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel contends that in order to avoid any technical objection, an application for amendment of the ejectment petition was thus filed for necessary clarification and also to elaborate the factual status of other shops, which were under the joint ownership of the petitioners and their family members. It was also submitted that the petitioners Gurjeet Singh and Jaspal Singh while stepping into the witness- box as AW-1 and AW-5, respectively, had clarified their status qua all the shops, which were under their ownership and other co-sharers including the shops which were under the tenancy of different tenants as well as the factum of no other shop lying vacant. Learned Sr. counsel thus submits that it was in the aforementioned background, the petitioners wanted to amend sub-para 'A' of para 2 of the ejectment petition, so as to show that the other shops which were situated at Tempo Adda, Phagwara Road, Hoshiarpur, were not suitable for doing business.

4. Learned Sr. counsel further submitted that no doubt the proceedings before the Rent Controller were at an advance stage and the evidence of the parties had also concluded, however, the amendment which was being sought by the petitioners was more of legal in nature and would in no way change the complexion of the ejectment petition filed under Section 13 of the Rent Act and rather, it would help the Rent Controller to decide the controversy more effectively. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of this Court rendered in cases Jaswinder Singh Jawanda and another Vs. Suraj Parkash, 2008(59) RCR(C) 49, Chhaju Singh Sulekh Ram Family Trust, Khanna through its Managing Trustee, Chhaju Singh (deceased) through his LRs Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2017(1) RCR (Rent) 539 and Sohan Lal Bagga Vs. Mohd. Sayeed, 2017(1) Law Herald 716.

5. Per contra, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel opposite, by submitting that all the facts which the petitioners were now wanting to incorporate by way of the amended plaint, were already in their knowledge.

6. The evidence of both the parties stood recorded and concluded and the case was at an advance stage i.e. was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments. It was further urged that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was completely silent as to why the petitioner had failed to exercise due diligence at the time of filing the petition and