(1) CW -8166/07-(Gajanand Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) Abu Road & Anr.) (2) CW- 7831/07-(Mohan Lal Vs. Members of H.U.F. Pukhraj Hazarimal & Anr.) Judgment dt.22.2.2010 1/3 1. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8166/2007 (Gajanand Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) Abu Road & Anr.) 2. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7831/2007 (Mohan Lal Vs. Members of H.U.F. Pukhraj Hazarimal & Anr.) Date of order : 22nd February, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Ashok Patel for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Shah for the respondents. ------- 1. These two writ petitions have been filed by the defendant-tenant being aggrieved by the order dated 10.1.2007 passed by the learned trial court rejecting the defendant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. (CW No.8166/2007) by another order dated 21.9.2006 (CW No.7831/2007) and order dated 21.9.2006, the learned trial court rejected the defendant's application under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) of C.P.C. 2. The case of the defendant-petitioner in the said applications was that during the period of tenancy in the present suit filed for eviction against the defendant-petitioner, the plaintiff had agreed to transfer the suit property to the defendant-petitioner and in (1) CW -8166/07-(Gajanand Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) Abu Road & Anr.) (2) CW- 7831/07-(Mohan Lal Vs. Members of H.U.F. Pukhraj Hazarimal & Anr.) Judgment dt.22.2.2010 2/3 this regard an oral agreement took place between the parties. The entering into any such agreement was denied by the plaintiff in reply to the said application. 3. The court below in the impugned orders has observed that since no such written agreement duly executed between the parties is placed on record neither the amendment in the pleadings of defendant-petitioner, on the basis of mere alleged oral agreement is necessary nor the said document which are not executed by both the parties including the alleged receipt of some part of consideration by such sale can be taken on record as the said receipt was stated to be not executed by the plaintiff. 4. Having heard learned counsels and in view of the reasons given in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner- defendant has merely sought to delay the trial in the present case by taking a stand that during the pendency of the said eviction matter of the property in question was agreed to be sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and since no such document properly executed by the plaintiff was placed on record and even the amendment in the written statement statement was sought on the basis of such alleged oral (1) CW -8166/07-(Gajanand Vs. Civil Judge (S.D.) Abu Road & Anr.) (2) CW- 7831/07-(Mohan Lal Vs. Members of H.U.F. Pukhraj Hazarimal & Anr.) Judgment dt.22.2.2010 3/3 agreement, the same has been rightly rejected by the learned court below. 5. This court does not find any force to interfere in these writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The reasons assigned by the Court below are cogent and sufficient. 6. This writ being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.80-81 babulal/