IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.04.2026 Madan Lal ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Subhash Mahajan ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present:- Mr. S.M.Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the landlord laying challenge to the order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Rent Controller, whereby application filed by the respondent/tenant under Order

6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the written statement, has been allowed.

2. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the instant application for amendment of written statement was filed by the respondent after trial has commenced, at the stage of cross- examination of the petitioner. Thus, as per proviso of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amendment cannot be permitted after commencement of trial. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

3. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from material errors of facts which are pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments from the record of the case. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be allowed; and the impugned order be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that in the Affidavit of examination-in-chief filed by the petitioner, he has raised some new points, which require clarification. It is for this reason that the instant application was filed by the respondent. It is accordingly prayed that the present Revision Petition be dismissed being meritless.

5. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

30.11.2021: Petitioner has filed Rent Petition dated 30.11.2021 (Annexure P-1) for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.

18.1.2022: Respondent had moved application dated 18.01.2022 for production of documents.

18.04.2022: Petitioner has filed reply to the said application.

26.04.2022: Vide order dated 26.04.2022, application of the respondent was partly allowed; and respondent was directed to produce allotment letter of demised premises and other documents.

04.07.2022: Respondent filed written statement dated 04.07.2022 to the main petition.

18.08.2022: Vide order dated 18.08.2022, issues were framed.

15.09.2022: Thereafter on 15.09.2022, respondent filed instant application (Annexure P-2) under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement.

30.09.2022: Petitioner has filed reply dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure P-3) to the said application.

17.11.2022: Vide impugned order dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-4), application for amendment of written statement filed by respondent has been allowed.

7. First and foremost, the legal position in this regard is very clear in as much as amendment cannot be permitted after trial has commenced unless the applicant is able to show that despite due diligence, the new facts were not in the knowledge of the applicant. Order

6 Rule 17 CPC reads as follows: -

“17. Amendment of pleadings. -The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:

Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”

8. A bare reading of the above provision shows that no doubt, ame