// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN 1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7327/2008 Sohan Singh S/o Shri Sawal Singh Versus Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Another AND 2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7331/2008 Sohan Singh S/o Shri Sawal Singh Versus Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Another Date of Order ::: 12.08.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Amit Ratnawat, Advocate, for Shri R.B. Mathur, Counsel for petitioners in both the writ petitions #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The aforesaid two writ petitions are directed against common order dated 9th May, 2008 passed by the trial court, therefore, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. A copy of this order may be placed on the record of another writ petition. The plaintiff-respondent No.2 Vijay Singh filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-petitioner in the trial court on the // 2 // ground of personal bona-fide necessity and default in making the payment of rent. The suit was decreed. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant-petitioner preferred an appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of the appeal, the defendant moved two applications; one under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the written-statement and another under Order 41 Rule 2 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the memo of appeal. The appellate court rejected both the applications. Being aggrieved with the same, the present two writ petitions have been preferred on behalf of the defendant-petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner moved the application for amendment in the written- statement on the ground that recently a decree of eviction in respect of another property of the plaintiff has been passed on 11th May, 2007 against another tenant Virendra Saxena, therefore, this fact is a subsequent event which ought to have been taken on the record but the appellate court committed an illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light // 3 // of the reasons assigned by the appellate court for rejecting the application. The appellate court has observed that similar application in respect of pendency of the litigation with Virendra Saxena, was filed in the trial court for amendment in the written-statement but the same was dismissed by a detailed order dated 30th August, 2006. The said order was not challenged by the petitioner in the competent court having jurisdiction. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find the amendment sought in the written- statement or in the memo of appeal to be relevant and material looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same while exercising the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed in limine. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//