SBCWP NO.5229/2006–RAJENDRA KUMAR V/S ADDL. DIST. JUDGE (F.T.) NO.6, UDAIPUR AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.21.7.2008 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5229/2006 Rajendra Kumar versus The Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Udaipur and ors. PRESENT HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioner. Mr.S. Shah, for respondents DATE OF ORDER : 21st July, 2008. O R D E R 1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against the order of the learned trial Court dtd.1.6.2006 whereby the learned trial Court rejected the SBCWP NO.5229/2006–RAJENDRA KUMAR V/S ADDL. DIST. JUDGE (F.T.) NO.6, UDAIPUR AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.21.7.2008 2/3 defendant's application seeking amendment of the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner – defendant submits that the issues sought to be raised by the defendant – petitioner by way of amendment is legal issue as to raising a plea regarding Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act on the basis of construction raised by him after purchase of the suit property in the year 1991, though the suit was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1994. The other amendment sought by him is regarding the suit being barred by limitation. 4. The learned trial Court has rejected the said application. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent – plaintiff opposes these submissions and submits that the issue of limitation has already been raised by the defendant No.1 and the issue regarding limitation has been framed by the learned trial Court. As far as the other amendment is concerned, he submits that such legal issue is a matter of argument and can be raised by the defendant during the course of arguments before the learned trial Court. SBCWP NO.5229/2006–RAJENDRA KUMAR V/S ADDL. DIST. JUDGE (F.T.) NO.6, UDAIPUR AND ORS. . : JUDGMENT DTD.21.7.2008 3/3 6. Having considered the rival submissions and from perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not require any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The question of limitation has already been raised before the learned trial Court and as far as argument of Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is concerned, it being a legal argument, can be raised during the course of arguments and no separate issue is required for the said purpose. 7. The writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Dr.VINEET KOTHARI)J. Item No.5 Ss/-