- (1.) Respondent-Raj Kumar has filed petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act seeking ejectment of respondent Rajinder Kumar (now represented by his legal representatives-petitioners). Notice of the petition was issued to Rajinder Kumar. After filing of the written statement by Rajinder Kumar, issues were framed by the Rent Controller. Raj Kumar concluded his evidence and thereafter the case was fixed for respondent evidence. At that stage, an application was filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short 'CPC') seeking amendment of the written statement. Vide the impugned order, the said application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller. Hence, the present petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the facts, now sought to be pleaded by the petitioners, were not in the knowledge of the petitioners at the time of filing of the written statement. The said facts came to the knowledge of the petitioners after the cross-examination of the landlord was conducted. Hence, the amendment now sought to be incorporated in the written statement was liable to be allowed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance in the case of Sushil Kumar Jain v. Manoj Kumar, 2009 3 RCR(Civ) 899, wherein it was held as under :- 9. That apart, a careful reading of the application for amendment of the written statement, we are of the view that the appellant seeks to only elaborate and clarify the earlier inadvertence and confusion made in his written statement. Even assuming that there was admission made by the appellant in his original written statement, then also, such admission can be explained by amendment of his written statement even by taking inconsistent pleas or substituting or altering his defence. 10. At this stage, we may remind ourselves that law is now well settled that an amendment of a plaint and amendment of a written statement are not necessarily governed by exactly the same principle. Adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering, substituting a new cause of action See Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar singh & Anr., 2006 3 RCR(Civ) 844. 15. We are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. In this case, in our view, the trial has not yet commenced. In para 17 of Baldev Singh , this Court observed :- It appears from the records that the parties have yet to file their documentary evidence in the suit. From the record, it also appears that the suit was not on the verge of conclusion a found by the High Court and the Trial Court. That apart, commencement of trial as used in proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 in the Code of Civil Procedure must be understood in the limited sense as meaning the final hearing of the suit, examination of witnesses, filing of documents and addressing of arguments. As noted hereinafter, parties are yet to file their documents, we do not find any reason to reject the application for amendment of the written statement in view of proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC which confers wide power and unfettered discretion to the Court to allow an amendment of the written statement at any stage of the proceedings.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal. Order 6, Rule 17 CPC reads as under :- 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 fbefore the commencement of trial.;