Sunder Lal vs Krishan Lal Vij on 12 April, 2013

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunder Lal vs Krishan Lal Vij on 12 April, 2013

Bench: Rajan Gupta

CR No.2485 of 2013                                       1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.

                          Civil Revision No.2485 of 2013
                          Date of decision: 12.4.2013

Sunder Lal                                               ...Petitioner

                             Versus

Krishan Lal Vij                                          ...Respondent


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA


Present:     Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

Present revision petition is directed against the order passed by the court below dismissing application preferred by the petitioner for amendment of reply.

Learned counsel has assailed the order. He submits that trial court has erroneously dismissed the application for amendment. Same was necessary for just decision of the case.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

It appears that an ejectment petition was filed against the petitioner by one Krishan Lal Vij on the ground of personal necessity. During the pendency of proceedings, an application was moved U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the reply. Same was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 28.4.2012. Petitioner challenged the same by way of Civil Revision No.3306 of 2012. However, said revision petition was CR No.2485 of 2013 2 withdrawn on February 05, 2013. It appears the petitioner moved another application U/O 6 Rule 17 CPC before the court below. Same has been rejected by the trial court observing that petitioner is merely trying to delay the proceedings. According to trial court, case has been pending for respondents' evidence since 24.12.2010. I find no legal infirmity with the order passed by the trial court. It is evident that amendment sought by the respondent/petitioner is wholly unnecessary. The issue whether petitioner is liable to be evicted on the ground of personal necessity of landlord is to be decided on the basis of evidence led before the court. It appears, however, that the petitioner is moving one application after another to delay the proceedings. I am, thus, of the considered view that no interference in revisional jurisdiction is called for.

Dismissed.

(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 12.4.2013 'rajpal'

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court