1 Kishan Chand Aashwani Vs. Manohar Lal (S.B.C. WRIT PETITION NO. 6134/09) Dated:- 19.7.10. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. A.K.Acharya, for the petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Babel on behalf of Mr. Deepak Menaria for the respondent. 1. This writ petition is directed against order dated 28.2.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Udaipur City (South) in Civil Original Case No. 206/01, whereby two applications preferred by the petitioner/ defendant one under Order VIII Rule 6A and another under Order VI Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC, stand dismissed. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of mortgage which is being contested by the petitioner/defendant by filing a written statement thereto. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the trial court framed the issues and the presently, the matter is posted for plaintiff evidence. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant filed two applications one under Order VIII Rule 6A and another under Order VI Rule 17 r/w 151 of CPC. 3. It was contended that in view of the rejoinder filed on behalf of the plaintiff, it has become necessary for the petitioner/defendant to file a counter claim and so also to amend the written statement so as to incorporate therein, the facts 2 regarding the expenditure incurred by the petitioner/defendant in repairing of the premises in question. 4. After due consideration, the court below arrived at the finding that the the petitioner has already claimed Rs. 45,000/- in the written statement filed by incorporating the additional pleas. The Court observed that the suit was filed in the year 2001 and the written statement was filed in the year 2002 and therefore, nothing prevented the petitioner to submit the counter claim if any. For the parity of reasons, the Court has refused to grant the application seeking leave to amend the written statement. After considering the pleadings, the Court observed that the applications made is only delaying tactic adopted by the petitioner/ defendant to delay the proceedings of the suit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the Court has seriously erred in rejecting the application without going into the merits of the application. Learned counsel submitted that the Court was not justified in rejecting the application preferred on the ground of delay. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has supported the orders impugned passed by the trial court. 7. It is to be noticed that in the written statement filed, the petitioner/defendant has claimed Rs.45,000/- from the respondent/plaintiff. The facts regarding expenditure incurred on 3 repairs are also incorporated therein. Therefore, it is absolutely wrong on the part of the respondent/defendant to contend that necessity of filing counter claim and application seeking amendment has arisen on account of alleged false and baseless averments made in the rejoinder. 8. Having considered the rival submission and after perusal of the material on record, in considered opinion of this Court, all the relevant aspects of the matter have been duly considered by the court below and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the orders impugned passed do not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J. rp