CMPMO No. 679 of 2009 25.6.2010 Present: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Surinder P. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 1(a), 2 and 3. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, vice counsel for respondents No. 4 to 8. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 20.10.2009 whereby his application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, amending the written statement stands dismissed. In the written statement the defendant had taken the plea that his predecessor-in- interest had come into possession of the demised premises by virtue of an agreement for tenancy entered into in the year 1971. By way of amendment the year 1971 is sought to be substituted as 1966. The application has been dismissed solely on the ground that the successor-in-interest of the original defendant have not shown due diligence in moving the application promptly. 2. Now there is no dispute that the original agreement was entered into by the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners. The petitioners applied for the amendment immediately upon discovering the mistake which had crept in the written statement. In this view of the matter the rejection of the petitioners’ application is untenable in law. The application ought to have been allowed and is ordered accordingly. 3. Keeping in view the controversy in issue as also the attending circumstances, the Court below is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eighteen -2- months from today. Learned Counsel for the parties agree to appear before the trial Court on 12.7.2010. Replication shall be filed by the plaintiff on the next date. Records be immediately sent back. 4. Petition stands disposed of so also the pending application. Dasti copy. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. June 25, 2010 (PK)