JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

CM-2578-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the main revision petition.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that he could not file an adjournment slip on account of the circumstances beyond his control and has submitted that the matter be decided on merits.

3. In view of the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present application is allowed and order dated 27.01.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken up on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 19.09.2024 (Annexure P5) whereby an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written reply has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the partition deed dated 29.06.2014 (Annexure P-2), the respondent herein is not entitled to receive the rent and it is Sumanjit Sharma, Murari Lal and Ramesh Kumar who are entitled to receive the rent and it is to incorporate the said plea that the application for amendment was moved which had been dismissed in an illegal manner vide the impugned order. It is however fairly submitted that since the petitioner was not in knowledge of the said partition deed dated 29.06.2014, the petitioner had been paying rent to the respondent herein.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order has been rightly passed and the present revision petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed for the reasons detailed hereinafter.

4. It is not in dispute that 'Shri Thakurji Thakurdwara, Sunami Gate Patiala' (petitioner in the rent petition) had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, for the ejectment of the respondent (petitioner herein) from the premises in question. It was the case in the ejectment petition that the present petitioner had executed a rent note in favour of the landlord on 13.05.1981 and had not paid the rent since January, 2011 at the rate of Rs.75/- per month. Although, the original written statement has not been annexed along with the present petition but a perusal of the impugned order, would show that the present petitioner had not disputed the relationship between the landlord and tenant and had rather admitted the same and thus, assessment order for provisional rent was passed vide order dated 28.07.2013. The said facts/observations have not been disputed before this Court. Thereafter, the respondent-landlord had led his entire evidence and it is only at the stage of the tenants evidence that the application for amendment was filed by virtue of which the admissions made in the earlier written statement were sought to be withdrawn. It was also noticed in the impugned order, which fact has also not been disputed before this Court, that the present petitioner had initiated the proceedings under Section 31 of the Punjab Indebtedness Relief Act to pay the rent to the respondent herein and thus, accepted the respondent (herein) as his landlord.

5. The present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC had been filed much after the commencement of the trial and in the said amendment application, it was stated that Mahant Vijay Dass had no right to institute the eviction petition in view of the partition deed dated 29.06.2014 and the amendment with respect to respondent not having the locus standi was sought to be incorporated in the amended written statement. In the reply filed to the said application, it was stated by the respondent that the said application for amendment had been filed only to delay the proceedings and that the property in question was in the ownership of the Mandir Thakur Ji Thakur Dwara and it was the said Mandir who had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban R