IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-9483-2025 Date of decision: 23.01.2026 Raj Kumar Gupta and another ...Pe$$oners Versus Shri Raghunath Mandir Society (Regd.) ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Ms. Shivya Sehgal, Advocate (Through VC) for the pe$$oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The pe$$oners have approached this Court assailing the order dated 28.11.2025 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Ludhiana in Rent Appeal bearing CIS No. RA-83 of 2019, whereby their applica$on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the wri;en statement was dismissed. 2. A brief reference to the relevant facts would be apposite. The respondent-landlord had ins$tuted an ejectment pe$$on in the year 2015, which came to be allowed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 11.02.2019. Aggrieved thereof, the pe$$oners-tenants preferred an appeal in March 2019. 3. During the pendency of the said appeal, the pe$$oners moved an applica$on under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the wri;en statement to introduce a preliminary objec$on that the ejectment pe$$on itself was not maintainable on the ground that the demised premises was commercial in nature and, therefore, could not be vacated for a residen$al requirement as pleaded by the landlord. 4. A=er hearing learned counsel and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present revision. The plea sought to be introduced by way of amendment was admi;edly available to the pe$$oners at the $me of filing of the wri;en statement before the learned Rent Controller. No material has been YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.28 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document




 
placed on record to show that despite exercise of due diligence, the said plea could not have been raised earlier. The applica$on, therefore, squarely falls foul of the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which mandates that a=er commencement of trial, an amendment can be permi;ed only if the party sa$sfies the Court that such plea could not have been raised earlier despite due diligence. 5. It is equally well se;led that an amendment cannot be permi;ed at the appellate stage to raise a new and inconsistent plea, par$cularly when the amendment has the effect of reopening the en$re controversy and defea$ng the object of expedi$ous disposal of rent ma;ers. The proposed amendment would require fresh adjudica$on on facts, thereby unse;ling the findings already recorded by the learned Rent Controller. 6. The learned Appellate Authority has rightly exercised its discre$on in declining the amendment applica$on, par$cularly when the ejectment pe$$on had already been decided and the appeal was pending adjudica$on. The $ming of the applica$on also clearly indicates that the same was moved with an intent to delay the disposal of the appeal rather than to advance the cause of jus$ce. 7. This Court, therefore, does not find any illegality, jurisdic$onal error, or perversity in the impugned order dated 28.11.2025 warran$ng interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdic$on. 8. The pe$$on is accordingly dismissed. 23.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.28 09:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document