// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10460/2007 {Man Mohan Das Mundara Versus Additional Civil Judge (SD) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & Others} Date of Order :: 3rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Alok Garg for the petitioner Mr. Amit Gupta for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the trial court rejecting his application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement. 3. The plaintiff – respondent filed a suit for eviction in respect of disputed property in the year 2001. The written statement was filed by defendant – petitioner in the year 2002. The evidence of both the parties in the case was closed and case was fixed for final arguments on 23rd April, 2005. The defendant – petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 23rd July, 2005 for amendment in the written statement which // 2 // was rejected by the trial court on 3rd August, 2005 and case was again fixed for final arguments. The defendant - petitioner again filed the present application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC in the trial court for amendment in the written statement on 10th October, 2007 which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 28th November, 2007. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that amendment sought in the written statement is relevant which should be allowed, whereas the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner is habitual in making application one after another only to delay the eviction proceedings. The trial court rejected the application by observing that matter was fixed for final arguments on 23rd April, 2005. The defendant also filed earlier application dated 23rd July, 2005 in the trial court for amendment in the written statement which was dismissed on 3rd August, 2005. The order sheet dated 6th May, 2006 of the trial court further shows that defendant remained absent in the case and the case was adjourned for arguments for 5th July, 2006. The order sheet dated 3rd August, 2006 further shows that counsel for the defendant sought time for // 3 // arguments and thereafter the defendant changed advocates and case was delayed. 5. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the defendant – petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is delaying the disposal of the present case relating to eviction of petitioner from the rented premise. The suit was filed in the year 2001, the amendment sought in the written statement relates to the period of the year 1998, 2001 and 2003, whereas he moved earlier application for amendment in the written statement on 23rd July, 2005 which was dismissed by the trial court on 3rd August, 2005. On one day the defendant or his counsel remained absent. Thereafter advocates were changed in the case on behalf of the defendant. All these facts have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 28th November, 2007 passed by the trial court. The present application filed on behalf of the defendant – petitioner cannot be said to be bonafide in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This court while sitting in writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot and should not act as an appellate court against // 4 // the impugned order. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is very limited. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court so as to interfere in it. 6. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK // 5 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 1288/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10460/2007 {Man Mohan Das Mundara Versus Additional Civil Judge (SD) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate & Others} Date of Order :: 3rd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Alok Garg for the petitioner Mr. Amit Gupta for the respondents Upon dismissal of writ petition, the stay application does not survive and it also stands disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK/-