JUDGMENT
Arvind Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of above-said Civil Revision Nos.1920, 1922 and 2791 of 2007. Civil Revision Nos.1920 and 1922 of 2007 have been preferred by Ashok Kumar against the orders dated 12.2.2007 and 28.3.2007 respectively, while Civil Revision No. 2791 of 2007 has been filed by lagan Nath against the order dated 26.4.2007.
2. It is apposite to mentioned here that the petitioner Ashok Kumar earlier filed the application before the learned Rent Controller for incorporating certain facts by way of amendment and that application was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide order dated 12.2.2007, which has been impugned in Civil Revision No. 1920 of 2007.Thereafter, Ashok Kumar again moved an application for amendment of the written statement, in the same ejectment petition, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 28.3.2007 and has been challenged in Civil Revision No. 1922 of 2007.
3. Both the petitioners have been sued by the respondents in separate ejectment petitions, which have been filed with the averments that both the petitioners are tenants under them over two shops situated near Ghas Mandi, Nabha and sought their ejectment therefrom on various grounds including that of their personal necessity. The petitioners are contesting those petitions. Issues have been framed that the parties have led their evidence.
4. During the pendency of the ejectment petitions, both the petitioners filed separate applications seeking amendment of their written statement. The spirit of the amendments sought by the petitioners is to the effect that the plea of personal necessity, so raised by the respondents, has become redundant, in view of the developments made during the pendency of the ejectment petition. According to then, respondent-Mohinder Pal Singh has shifted with his family to Kapurthala and similarly the plea of personal necessity has ceased to exist as Jatinder Pal Singh has been given the possession of the shop, so vacated by another tenant namely Joginder Singh. As said above, the said applications have been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. Dissatisfied with the same, the instant revisions have been preferred.
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case file carefully.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the sought amendment is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the case, on merits.
7. The prayer has been opposed by learned Counsel for the respondents on the ground that the proposed amendment cannot be allowed at this belated stage, especially when a specific issue with regard to personal necessity has been framed by the Rent Controller and the parties have already led sufficient evidence in that regard.
8. Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. deals with the amendment of pleadings and provides that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend pleadings in such a 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. The dominant object to allow the amendment in the pleadings liberally is to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is equally well settled that unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the other side, the Court should adopt liberal approach and not a hyper-technical approach particularly in a case where the other side can be compensated with costs.
9. In the case of Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. v. K.K. Modi and Ors. , it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it is mandatory on court to allow all amendments which are necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. The Court should not go into the correctness or falsity of the case in the amendment. Likewise, it should not record a finding on the merits of the amendment and the merits of the amendment sought to be incorporated by way of amendment are not be adjudged at the stage of allowing the prayer for amendment. It has further been held that where cause of action arose during the pendency of suit, amendment in the pleadings be allowed if nature of relief is changed, but did not change1 the basic structure of the suit.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further advertising on the object of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. has also held that the object of the rule is mat the court should try the merits of the case that comes before it. It should liberally allow all bona fide amendments necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Rule of amendment is essentially a rule of justice, equity and good conscience and power of amendment should be exercised in the larger interest of justice and procedural obstacles ought not to impede the dispensation of justice.
11. In the instant case, the request of the petitioners for amendment has been turned down by the Rent Controller mainly by observing that the same have been filed by the petitioner just as a delay tactics. However, it has categorically been averred in the applications for amendment moved by the petitioners that the facts which they now want to incorporate in the written statement have occurred during the pendency of the ejectment petitions and were not within the knowledge of the petitioners earlier when they filed their written statements. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioners have acted with malafide intention and filed the applications just as a delay tactics. Moreover, this Court is of the considered opinion that the basic structure of the case will not be changed due to the proposed amendment, especially when the issue with regard to personal necessity has been framed by the Rent Controller, as conceded by both the parties. Though the plea has been raised that the case is at the fag end, but merely on this account, the sought relief cannot be declined, under the circumstances when the petitioners have shown their bona fide and that sought amendment is necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. That apart, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, who can well be compensated with costs and obviously have an opportunity to refute me plea of the petitioners.
12. As a sequel to the above discussion, all the civil revisions are allowed. The orders impugned in the respective revisions petitions are set aside. The trial court is directed to permit the petitioners to carry out necessary amendment in their respective written statements, in accordance with the prayer made in their applications. The order passed is subject to payment of consolidated costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by petitioner Ashok Kumar and Rs. 2,500/- by petitioner Jagan Nath, to both the respondents before the Trial Court.
13. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 3.8.2007, on which date the petitioners will file their amended written statement. It is also made clear that whatever application the petitioners intend to file, be filed on the same day and the trial court will dispose of the same within a weeks’ time, so that the court will conveniently thereafter proceed with the case on the date already fixed i.e. 13.8.2007. Disposed of accordingly.