Back
ARUN MONGA
Raj Rani – Appellant
Versus
Rohit Garg – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the eviction petition and tenant responses. (Para 2) |
| 2. court's perspective on allowing amendments. (Para 3 , 4 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. importance of amendments in legal proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. conclusion and order granting amendment. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
CM-6278-CII-2023
Allowed as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions.
Main case
Revision herein is for setting aside order dated 15.02.2023passed by Ld. Rent Controller, Sangrur, whereby application filed by revisionists seeking amendment of written statement, was dismissed.
2. Succinct facts first, as pleaded in the instant petition.
2.1. Respondent No.1 Rohit Garg filed an eviction petition (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 against the present revisionists and respondent Nos.2 and 3 for eviction from the shop in dispute situated at Bhawanigarh on the grounds of non-payment of rent and for bona fide personal necessity. In the eviction petition, it was stated that the shop in dispute was taken on rent 30-32 year ago by Subhash Chand (husband of revisionist No.1 and father of revisionist No.2) from Hari Ram Garg. Subsequently, the owner
Litigants should be afforded the opportunity to establish their cases by amending pleadings, and rules of procedure should not thwart substantial justice.
Amendments should not fundamentally change the nature of the case and must be bona fide.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
