IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

271 CR-7388-2025(O&M)

Date of decision: 12.03.2026 Virender Kumar ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Harish Kumar Grover ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Ms. Parul Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. D.K. Tuteja, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/tenant against the order dated 18.08.2025 whereby application dated 14.05.2025 (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to amend the written statement, has been dismissed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Rent Controller was in error in dismissing the application of the petitioner for amendment in written statement as it failed to appreciate that the proposed amendments were necessary for the proper adjudication of the matter. It is submitted that the respondent himself, in the Ejectment Petition (Annexure P1) had averred that the suit property had been ‘leased’ out to the petitioner vide ‘Lease Agreement’ dated 18.09.2019. It is submitted that however, inadvertently, in the written statement (Annexure P2), the petitioner had referred to the said ‘Lease Agreement’ as ‘Rent Agreement’. It is submitted that in the entire Ejectment Petition, the respondent has nowhere mentioned that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. However, in the written statement, the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Rent Controller had inadvertently referred to the respondent as landlord of the petitioner. Further, due to an inadvertent omission, petitioner had also failed to take any preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction of the Court regarding the maintainability of the Ejectment Petition under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. The learned counsel representing the petitioner before the learned trial Court had also failed to take any objection in respect of the fact that the respondent is required to pay ad valorem Court fee on the amount of one year’s lease money mentioned in the Lease Agreement; as well as other legal objections.

3. Learned counsel contends that it is settled law that no litigant should suffer loss due to the negligence of the Advocate. In the present case, necessary preliminary objections which were required to be mentioned in the written statement were not taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial court. It is submitted that accordingly, the petitioner has engaged a new counsel to represent him. Therefore, the application of the petitioner could not have been dismissed. It is reiterated that the amendment is sought only because of fault on the part of the previous counsel for the petitioner who failed to take preliminary objections in the original reply regarding jurisdiction, non-maintainability and other technicalities of law. The petitioner should not be made to suffer for the mistake of the counsel.

4. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Civil Judge was in error in holding that by way of the amendment, the petitioner was seeking to withdraw the admissions made by him in his reply. It is contended that the said observation is uncalled for as it is the respondent himself who has stated in the Ejectment Petition that there was a “Lease Agreement” between the parties. It is contended that therefore, the proposed amendments would not in any manner amount to withdrawal of any alleged admissions made by the petitioner in the written statement.

5. Thus, Ld. Rent Controller has wrongly held that the petitioner cannot be allowed to withdraw the admission made by him in the reply by way of amendment in the reply. Whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest judgments have held that any admission made by a party may be withdrawn or explained away by means of an amendment. In fact, the party can even take inconsistent pleas by means of an amendment.

6. It is