IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

CR-1914-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25.02.2026 Rajesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs.

Shri Raghunath Mandir Society and others . . . . Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA ****

Present: - Mr. Divanshu Jain and Mr. Abhinav Goel, Advocates, for the petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The tenant–petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 09.01.2026 passed in rent appeal bearing CIS No. RA-79-2019 by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana, whereby the application moved by the petitioner during pendency of the eviction appeal seeking amendment of reply to main petition, and consequential relief has been dismissed.

2. The eviction petition filed by the landlord (respondent herein) culminated in an order of ejectment dated 11.02.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Rent Controller. The tenant preferred an appeal, which is pending before the Appellate Authority. During pendency of the appeal, the petitioner moved the application seeking amendment of his reply alleging concealment of certain facts by the landlord, which came to light later on. The Appellate Authority, upon consideration of the record, dismissed the application by way of impugned order, by noticing that the same was moved after considerable delay, that the earlier operative order had attained finality, and that the prayer in substance amounted to seeking review of an earlier order without any statutory basis.

3. Assailing the order, Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the amendment was necessary for proper adjudication of the appeal and that refusal thereof would prejudice the defence of the tenant.

4. Having heard learned counsel and examined the record, this Court finds the revision petition to be devoid of merit.

5. It is trite that revisional jurisdiction in rent matters is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is justified only where the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity. Procedural discretion exercised by the Appellate Authority, unless manifestly arbitrary, is not liable to be substituted by this Court. In present case, no such jurisdictional error is reflected.

6. The law is well settled that amendment of pleadings at the appellate stage cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must satisfy the test of due diligence and necessity for determining the real controversy.

7. In Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons, (2009) 10 SCC 84, by referring to the amended provisions of order VI Rule 17 CPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that amendments should not be allowed where they introduce a new case, cause prejudice, or are lacking in bona fides. Similarly, in Vidyabai v. Padmalatha, (2009) 2 SCC 409, it was held that after commencement of proceedings, amendment cannot be permitted unless the party establishes due diligence. Thus, the amendment sought at a belated stage without explanation for delay deserves rejection.

8. The present case squarely attracts the above principles. As noticed by the Appellate Authority, the application was moved after a substantial lapse of time and was completely silent as to the reasons preventing the petitioner from raising the proposed plea earlier. The petitioner had already been contesting the proceedings and complying with the earlier operative order for a considerable period. The belated attempt to alter the defence clearly reflects lack of due diligence.

9. The proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, though not strictly applicable in rent proceedings, embodies a salutary principle against belated amendments lacking diligence. The Appellate Authority has rightly applied this principle. Delay coupled with absence of explanation is by itself a valid ground to decline amendment.

10. Further rejection of amendment does not foreclose the petitioner’s right to contest the eviction appeal on the basis of existing pleadings. The impugned order does not re