Punjab & Haryana High Court Rejects Tenant’s Plea to Amend Written Statement Based on Cross-Examination Admissions; Holds Evidence Cannot Be Converted Into Pleadings

Case Name: Dharampal Mehmi v. Sushma Rani

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026

Citation: CR-9418-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by the tenant and upheld the order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The Court held that facts elicited during cross-examination do not furnish an independent ground for amendment of pleadings after commencement of trial. It was further held that permitting amendment on the basis of admissions made during evidence would amount to converting evidence into pleadings and allowing a party to restructure its defence after assessing the strength or weakness of the opponent’s case, which is impermissible in law.

Summary: The petitioner–tenant challenged the order passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby his application seeking amendment of the written statement in an eviction petition was dismissed. The amendment was sought on the ground that during cross-examination, the petitioner–landlord had allegedly admitted that she was residing in a residential house standing in the name of her husband and that she did not own any other residential or non-residential property except the suit premises.

On the basis of these alleged admissions, the tenant sought to introduce pleadings alleging concealment of material facts, false affidavit, lack of bona fide personal necessity, and receipt of a security amount of ₹2,00,000 by the landlord and her husband. It was contended that these facts had surfaced only during cross-examination and were necessary for proper adjudication of the eviction petition.

The High Court noted that the application for amendment had been moved after commencement of trial and after the landlord had already been examined and cross-examined as PW-1. Consequently, the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC was held to be squarely applicable, requiring the applicant to demonstrate due diligence, which was found to be conspicuously absent.

The Court held that cross-examination is meant to test the veracity of pleadings already on record and that any admission made therein becomes part of the evidentiary record to be appreciated at the stage of final arguments. Such admissions cannot be used as a foundation to amend pleadings. The Court further observed that the facts sought to be introduced were either already within the knowledge of the tenant or could have been pleaded with reasonable diligence at the time of filing the original written statement. No subsequent event necessitating amendment was disclosed.

It was also held that the proposed amendments were not essential for determining the real controversy, as issues relating to bona fide requirement and availability of alternative accommodation were already subject matter of evidence. The application was found to be an attempt to fill lacunae exposed during trial and to delay the proceedings.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The order passed by the Rent Controller rejecting the application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was upheld.