Judgment:
Civil Revision No.775 of 2014 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.775 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 31.1.2014 Sunil Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Kailash Chand Gupta .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.
(Oral) The conspectus of the facts and material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, initially, petitioner-plaintiff Sunil Kumar son of Raj Kumar, claiming himself to be the tenant, (for brevity “the plaintiff”.), has instituted the civil suit (Annexure P1), for a decree of permanent injunction, restraining respondent-defendant Kailash Chand Gupta son of Om Parkash (landlord) (for short “the defendant”.), from dispossessing him from the property in dispute, in any manner. The defendant contested the claim of plaintiff, filed the written statement (Annexure P2), stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
2. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has moved an application (Annexure P3) for amendment of plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC. The defendant has refuted the prayer of Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.775 of 2014 (O&M) 2 plaintiff, filed the reply (Annexure P4), strongly denied all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.
3. Taking into consideration the facts and entire material on record, the trial Court dismissed the pointed application for amendment of plaint filed by the plaintiff, by way of impugned order dated 22.1.2014 (Annexure P5).
4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiff has preferred the present petition, invoking the superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this respect.
6. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the proposed amendment is essential to decide the real controversy, between the parties, so, the trial Court committed the legal mistake to dismiss the application filed by the plaintiff for amendment of plaint, sans merit.
7. As is evident from the record that the petitioner-plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant-landlord. He (defendant) has already filed a petition for his ejectment u/s 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 before the Rent Controller. The plaintiff has filed a simple suit for a decree of permanent injunction, claiming himself to be the tenant under the defendant-landlord at a monthly rent of ` 15000/-. Now by way of amendment, the tenant intends to incorporate a different contradictory stand, to plead that there were two tenants in the demised premises. That means, he wants to change the basic structure/nature of the Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Civil Revision No.775 of 2014 (O&M) 3 original suit and wants to introduce a contrary plea of two tenants. Moreover, if there were two tenants in the premises in dispute, then, this fact was in the knowledge of the plaintiff, much prior to the filing of the present suit (Annexure P1). Therefore, the petitioner-tenant appears to have filed the application (Annexure P3) for amendment of plaint, in order to delay the disposal of the suit. To me, such contrary plea, totally changing the basic structure/nature of the suit, cannot possibly be permitted to be introduced in the plaint, at this belated stage.
8. Meaning thereby, the trial Court has correctly dismissed the application (Annexure P3) filed by the petitioner for amendment of plaint, through the medium of impugned order (Annexure P5), examined the matter in the right perspective and has recorded the cogent grounds in this relevant behalf. Such order, containing valid reasons, cannot legally be set aside, in exercise of superintendence power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless & until, the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner, so, the impugned order of the trial court deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
9. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is hereby dismissed as such. Sd/- (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 31.1.2014 AS Arvind Kumar Sharma 2014.02.05 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh