Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mrs.Ranjana Mahajan And Another vs Miss Chhavi Ahluwalia And Another on 31 October, 2012
Civil Revision No. 6397 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 6397 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.10.2012
Mrs.Ranjana Mahajan and another ........Petitioners
versus
Miss Chhavi Ahluwalia and another ......... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.Divanshu Jain, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):
This petition has been filed against an order declining an application for amendment in the written statement.
The respondents had filed a petition for evicting the petitioners on the ground of non payment of rent as well as on the ground of personal necessity. In the written statement the plea taken by the petitioners was that the rent was ` 6000/- per month and they had given details of the five payments made by five different cheques on account of rent. Thereafter when the cross examination of PW2 was going on, a suggestion was put to her that apart from these five payments there was yet another sixth payment which was replied by her in the affirmative. After the cross-examination of PW2 the present application was moved on the ground that in the original Civil Revision No. 6397 of 2012(O&M) 2 written statement the mention of the sixth payment was omitted inadvertently and this fact came to light only during the cross-examination of PW2 and consequently it was prayed that the petitioner be allowed to amend the written statement to incorporate the plea that sixth payment had been made on account of enhanced security at the request of the respondents. The learned trial Court rejected the application holding that apart from the original omission even the averment in the application that the fact of sixth payment had come to light during the cross-examination was a wrong averment because the fact of sixth payment had come to light on a suggestion put by learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned trial Court also held that in the original written statement there had been no mention of any payment being made on account of enhanced security. The learned trial Court further held that the application had been moved only to delay the proceedings and consequently dismissed the same.
Learned counsel has argued that the omission of fact even otherwise established by evidence can always be permitted to be incorporated by way of amendment, more so since the parameters for deciding an application for amendment of written statement have been held by the Courts to be wider than those for amending a plaint. Though this argument of learned counsel cannot be rejected out of hand, yet it can also not be forgotten that even though if the fact of payment can be incorporated, the reason now trotted out for the same is a totally different kettle of fish. Resultantly it has to be held that as regards the payment of ` 36,000/- which has been admitted by the respondents the same would have to be considered by the Court but the application for amendment as such cannot be held to have been wrongly rejected.
Civil Revision No. 6397 of 2012(O&M) 3
Resultantly the payment of ` 36,000/- which has been admitted by the respondents would have to be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court though not the reason which has now been given for the same.
Petition is disposed of.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE October 31 , 2012 sunita