1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7399/2007. Birbal Ram Vs. Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) & Anr. Date of Order :: 13th May 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. G.R. Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Hemant Kumar Jain, for the respondent No.2. ..... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 26.10.2007(Annex.3) as passed by the learned Trial Court refusing an application made by the petitioner seeking permission to amend the written statement in the suit for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the amendment of written statement is considered quite liberally as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Usha Balashaheb Swami & Ors. Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors. : (2007) 5 SCC 602; and submits that the merits of the pleadings are not to be considered at the time of considering the prayer for amendment. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner pointed out subsequent events of availability of three shops with the plaintiff that could be put to his use, if at all 2 there be any requirement; and the learned Trial Court has been in error in observing in the impugned order that shops as referred by the petitioner belong to the mother of the plaintiff. True it is that amendment of written statement is considered from a liberal stand point and addition of a new ground of defence or substituting or altering the grounds of defence and even taking of inconsistent pleas are not impermissible; however, it remains fundamental to the very process of consideration of a prayer for amendment that the same ought to have been made bona fide and ought not be causing serious prejudice to the other side. The application (Annex.1) for amendment as moved in this case remains absolutely vague and uncertain and the pleadings as suggested in the proposed amendment even do not spell out as to when the alleged subsequent events of availability of three shops occurred ? The suggested pleadings are more of levelling allegations against the plaintiff of his otherwise intention to earn premium rather than suggesting any material fact. The learned Trial Court has observed that the matter was already fixed for defendant's evidence and it is nowhere borne out as to why such application for amendment could not have been moved earlier and as to when the petitioner, if at all, came to know about any subsequent event or fact. In the very same decision in the case of Usha 3 Balashaheb Swami (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to point out: ''It is now well-settled by various decisions of this Court as well as those by High Courts that the courts should be liberal in granting the prayer for amendment of pleadings unless serious injustice or irreparable loss is caused to the other side or on the ground that the prayer for amendment was not a bona fide one.'' The prayer for amendment as made in the present case could only have been rejected as being not bona fide; and the observations as made by the learned Trial Court that the referred shops belong to the mother of the plaintiff are nothing but of reference to the facts that have already emerged on record. It is noticed that the learned Trial court has rejected the application on costs of Rs. 300/- and then posted the matter for defendant's evidence to 13.11.2007. However, further proceedings in the suit were stayed in this writ petition on 06.11.2007. It is pointed out that the Trial Court has now fixed next date as 07.07.2008 awaiting orders in this writ petition. It is also noticed that earlier also this Court, while deciding CWP No. 3111/2007 related to this very suit, has observed that it shall be open for the defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff on the aspect about the premises belonging to his mother 4 having fallen vacant even when the amendment was not allowed as such. However, this Court specifically directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial of the suit expeditiously. Only thereafter has the petitioner moved the present vague application for amendment. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is required to be dismissed with costs and further with directions to the Trial Court to curb against any unnecessary delay in the matter and requiring the petitioner to proceed with his evidence, if he so chooses, positively on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 2,200/-; and it is enjoined upon the defendant-petitioner to make payment of such costs to the plaintiff-respondent on or before the next date of hearing before the Trial Court and also to adduce his entire evidence on the next date in the Trial Court failing which, it shall be permissible for the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders including those for closing down the evidence and setting the matter for final hearing. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/