CW – 2043/08 - Jagdish Chandra & Anr.Vs. ADJ No.3, Udaipur & Anr. Judgment dt.5.9.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2043/2008 Jagdish Chandra & Anr. Vs. The ADJ No.3, Udaipur & Anr. Date of order : 5th September, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Sajjan Singh ) for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Singh) --------- 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12.2.2008 whereby the learned first appellate Court rejected the amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the defendant tenant seeking amendment in the written statement at the appellate stage to the effect that the plaintiff-respondent did not implead all the partners of the partnership firm as defendants in the suit filed for eviction and, therefore, such amendment should be allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that since one cheque was given against the arrears of rent by the partner which has not been taken into account by the learned trial court, therefore, the finding of default cannot be sustained. He further sought amendment in the pleadings in respect of Section 14 (3) of the Act. 4. Having heard learned counsel, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 12.2.2008. There is no necessity to implead all the partners of the defendant firm which is tenant in question as individual defendants in a eviction matter. The reason is obvious since the constitution of partnership firm can keep CW – 2043/08 - Jagdish Chandra & Anr.Vs. ADJ No.3, Udaipur & Anr. Judgment dt.5.9.08 2/2 on changing at the will of the partners, therefore, the plaintiff respondent cannot be expected in law to keep on changing the array of respondent-defendants. The said amendment appears to have been sought at the appellate stage merely to delay the decision of appeal. The other amendments sought are also legal arguments as far as the pleadings are concerned no amendment is necessary and they may be legal arguments which may be raised by the appellant-defendant before the first appellate Court. Therefore, this Court finds no error in the impugned order in rejecting the amendment application of appellant-defendant. 5. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wholly misconceived. Therefore, the same is dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.3 babulal/-