Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naresh Kumar vs Ram Avtar & Ors on 15 October, 2012
Author: Jaswant Singh
Bench: Jaswant Singh
CR No.6063 of 2012(O&M) #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CR No.6063 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision:-15.10.2012
Naresh Kumar.
......Petitioner.
Versus
Ram Avtar & Ors.
......Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present:- Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the Petitioner(tenant).
***
JASWANT SINGH, J(ORAL).
Petitioner(tenant) is in revision under Section 15(6) of the Haryana Urban(Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 against the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge(Jr. Divn.), Gurgaon whereby application for amendment of written statement has been dismissed.
In brief, facts of the case are that through the application for amendment of written statement, the petitioner(tenant) stated that due to inadvertent mistake he could not disclose to his lawyer that the suit property belongs to Lekh Raj Mandir and the said fact came to the knowledge of the lawyer when the respondent(landlord) adduced his evidence. It was further stated that the duty of the respondent(landlord) is to only collect rent for Lekh Raj Mandir and therefore, there cannot be any CR No.6063 of 2012(O&M) #2# personal necessity for the respondent(landlord). Hence, the said amendments are required for proper adjudication.
In reply to the said application, respondent(landlord) stated that application is in gross abuse of process of law and the same has been moved only to delay the proceedings as after framing of issues and closing of evidence of the landlord, the tenant had availed three opportunities and thereafter the present application has been moved. It was further mentioned in the reply that Lekh Raj Mandir is the not the owner of the property and it is the landlord/respondent who is owner and story propounded is absolutely false.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, learned Rent Controller dismissed the application.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) and have gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner(tenant) has argued that the learned Rent Controller has committed grave error by disallowing the application of the petitioner(tenant) as it has failed to consider that it was a mistake on the part of the counsel due to which the objections could not be taken regarding the ownership of the property and, therefore, for the mistake of the counsel a party should not be made to suffer. It was further argued that if a particular amendment goes to the route of the matter such amendment has to be allowed for proper adjudication.
After hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is devoid of merit and the same deserves to be dismissed. It is not in dispute that the amendment CR No.6063 of 2012(O&M) #3# which is being sought by the petitioner(tenant) was in his knowledge right from the beginning and the story regarding Ram Avtar-respondent not being the owner of the property and Lekh Raj Mandir being owner of the property coming in the cross examination of Ram Avtar is not at all been substantiated before this Court by way of any evidence. Furthermore, it is true that procedural law is handmaid of justice and same cannot come in way of substantial justice, however, the party has to show due diligence so as to make its case fall within the four corners of the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 CPC which is mandatory in nature and not directory. Since the facts of the case show that the petitioner(tenant) had availed three effective opportunities to lead his evidence and thereafter moved the present application and further more, the respondent(landlord) had concluded his entire evidence much before that, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present application is completely misconceived and is a delaying tactic. However, it is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not have any bearing on the merits of the main case if it is proved that Ram Avtar-respondent is not the landlord of the petitioner or the other tenants.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present revision petition, the same is hereby dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE October 15, 2012 Vinay