C.R. No. 2348 of 2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

C.R. No. 2348 of 2010

Date of decision 16.7.2010

Punjab National Bank

.......petitioner

vs.

Ram Kaur and others

.......respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Present: -

Mr. R.S. Bhatia, Advocate

for the petitioner.

HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL)

Challenge in the present revision petition is the order passed

by the learned trial Court on 18.3.2010, whereby an application filed by the

defendant-petitioner for amendement of the written statement, was

declined.

The plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for possession and

also claimed Mesne Profits. During the pendency of the suit, the parties

entered into a settlement. In terms of the said settlement as per the

defendant, the plaintiff was to withdraw the present suit. The suit continued

and was decreed by the trial Court. However, the judgment and decree

was set aside by the learned first Appellate Court on 30.4.2009 and the

matter was remitted back for decision afresh after giving opportunity to the

parties to lead evidence. Thereafter, the defendant moved an application

for amendement of the written statement to plead compromise whereby the

plaintiff has agreed to withdraw the suit.

The amendment sought is that premises in question has been

C.R. No. 2348 of 2010

-2-

included in the area of Municipal Council, Gurgaon, therefore, the

provisions of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1973 are

applicable and that the petitioner has thus become a protected tenant. It is

further sought to be pleaded that in terms of settlement, the suit is to be

withdrawn. The said settlement was arrived at after filing of the written

statement.

The learned trial Court dismissed the application seeking

amendment of the written statement primarily on the ground that such

amendment has been sought after gross delay.

I do not find that the reasons given by the learned trial Court

are sustainable in law. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court

has been set aside, with liberty to parties to lead evidence. Therefore, it

can be said that the trial has not commenced. The parties are yet to lead

evidence. Therefore, amended provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 will not bar

the defendant to seek amendment in the written statement. The

amendment sought is in respect of the conduct of plaintiff. As per the

statement, the plaintiff was to withdraw the suit. Since, the plaintiff has not

withdrawn the suit even after settling the dispute, such ground should be

permitted to be raised so as to adjudicate all disputes between the parties

in an effective manner.

Consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned trial

Court is set aside. The petitioner-defendant is permitted to amend the

written statement, as prayed for.

Allowed, in the above terms.

(HEMANT GUPTA)

JUDGE

16.7.2010

preeti