CW 8020/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.8020/2009 M/s Eleness Advanced Software Technogies India Ltd & Anr Versus PO Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & CR Mohan. Date of Order ::: 10/08/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Anand Sharma, for petitioner (tenant) Instant petition has been filed at the behest of defendant (tenant) assailing order dt.28/04/09 (Ann.5) whereby the application moved U/O 6 R.17, CPC seeking amendment in written statement in Org.Appl.580/06 after closure of the evidence of plaintiff was rejected by Rent Tribunal (Addl. Civil Judge No.5) Jaipur on the premise that what has been prayed for in the application seeking amendment was within their knowledge at the time of filing written statement and taken note of by defendant during cross examination of plaintiff's evidence; hence there is no justification for defendant petitioner particularly when two opportunities were earlier granted to lead evidence and thereafter, application was filed on 26/02/09 which was got rejected as not pressed on 27/02/09, when instant application seeking amendment has been filed U/O 6, R.17, CPC. CW 8020/09 //2// As alleged, Plaintiff-respondent No.2 filed suit for eviction U/s 9(a) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (“Rent Act”) on the ground of default and the defendant filed their written statement. After evidence of plaintiff was recorded and at the stage while the defendant had to lead evidence, twice time was sought and when failed to lead evidence, filed application seeking further opportunity which was not pressed and withdrawn on 27/02/09, on that day, filed instant application seeking amendment in written statement, which was rejected vide order impugned. Counsel for petitioner vehemently submits that the documents on which defendant seeks to place reliance have been concealed by plaintiff and pleadings whereof in written statement by way of amendment in no manner are not going to prolong or delay pending trial; in such circumstances, Rent Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting application for amendment in written statement. After amendment introduced in O.6, R.17, CPC vide Amendment Act (NO.22 of 2002), if any amendment is sought after the trial having commenced, obligation has been casted CW 8020/09 //3// upon the Court to examine as to whether amendment sought for is necessary for determining the real question in controversy provided the court comes to the conclusion that in spite his due diligence, it could not have been raised before commencement of trial. Amendment as sought for herein was much within the knowledge of defendant (petitioner) and documents as alleged in this regard have already been exhibited and taken note of on behalf of defendant in course of cross examination put to plaintiff's witnesses and much after trial has commenced and closure of plaintiffs' evidence, defendant sought two opportunities to lead his evidence and while having failed to do so despite opportunities afforded, he has come out with instant application seeking amendment and the nature whereof does not in any manner depict that it was not within his knowledge on the date of filing of written statement. Suffice it to say that when the facts remain un-controverted being already within knowledge of defendant in course of trial, permission which the petitioner seeking for amendment, is nothing but a lame excuse. In the opinion of this Court, learned Rent CW 8020/09 //4// Tribunal has not committed any manifest error in rejecting his plea seeking amendment at such belated stage of trial, which does not call for interference. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.4/8020CW09Aug10RntCPC.doc