// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5815/2006 Roshan Ali S/o late Hussain and Others Versus Gulam Rasool alias Gulam Hussain and Others Date of Order ::: 21.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Shiv Charan Gupta, Counsel for petitioners Shri M.K. Jain, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. Shri M.K. Jain, Advocate, appears for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for declaration, eviction, mandatory and prohibitory injunction in respect of disputed property. The defendant-petitioners filed their written-statement. The plaintiff's evidence has been closed and the matter is now going on for defendant's evidence. The defendant-petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written-statement to the extent that in last line of Para No.6 at Page No.12 of the written-statement the words “Faiju // 2 // Khan” has wrongly been typed in place of “Fattu Khan”, therefore, the same may be allowed to be amended; the word “Faiju Khan” may be deleted and “Fattu Khan” may be substituted. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. The trial court, vide its order dated 18th July, 2006 rejected the application. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-petitioners have preferred this writ petition. The learned counsel for the defendant- petitioners contended that due to typing error the present mistake occurred in the written- statement and, therefore, it is required to be corrected by way of amendment. He further contended that the nature of the written- statement is not going to be changed by this amendment; the plaintiffs are not going to be prejudiced in any manner in case the amendment sought is allowed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents contended that the mistake, which is sought to be corrected by way of amendment, was not bona-fide but it was a deliberate and, in fact, it was an admission on their behalf, which should not be allowed to be withdrawn in the name of amendment in the pleadings. He also contended that the suit was filed in the year 1998 and now the matter is fixed for // 3 // defendant's evidence; in case the present amendment is allowed, again the matter will be fixed for framing of issues and for the plaintiff's evidence, therefore, the matter will be delayed unnecessarily. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there is no need to amend the issues and to fix the case for plaintiff's evidence again. He contended that the matter is already fixed for defendant's evidence and he will adduce his evidence within a period of six weeks and thereafter the matter can be disposed of at an early date. So far as delay of proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the same can be compensated by way of costs. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and also the documents annexed with the writ petition and, after considering the same, it appears that in place of “Fattu Khan” the word “Faiju Khan” has wrongly been typed in Para 6 at Page 12 of the written-statement and the nature of written- statement is not going to be changed by this amendment. So far as delay of proceeding is concerned, the learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has already contended // 4 // that he will file the amended written-statement within the time bound programme and the case may be fixed for defendant's evidence itself as there will be no necessity to frame any further additional issue. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties I am inclined to allow the application for amendment in the written-statement. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th July, 2006 passed by the trial court is set-aside. The application filed by the defendant- petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only). The defendant- petitioners are directed to file amended written-statement within a period of six weeks from today and the trial court will take the same on the record only after ensuring that the payment of costs is made by the defendant- petitioners, otherwise the amended written- statement will not be taken on the record and the writ petition will be deemed to have been dismissed. There will be no need to frame any additional issue or to fix the case for plaintiff's evidence again. The matter is fixed for defendant's evidence and the defendants have undertaken to adduce their complete // 5 // evidence within a period of six weeks from today, therefore, it is directed that no further time, except six weeks as directed above, will be allowed to the defendant- petitioners to adduce their evidence. The matter relates to the year 1998, therefore, the trial court is directed to decide the suit itself as soon as possible but not later than six months. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//