IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5221/2008 (Kunj Bihari Sharma Versus Shambhu Dayal Sharma) Date of Order :: 2nd July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the defendant – petitioner. 2. The present writ petition is directed against the impugned order dated 7th May, 2008 passed by the trial court whereby application filed by defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has committed illegality in rejecting the application, whereas the amendment sought in the written statement was legal one and the same should have been allowed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the learned trial court for rejecting the application. The plaintiff – respondent filed a suit for -2- possession against the defendant – petitioner in respect of disputed plot. It was pleaded by the plaintiff in the plaint that plaintiff and defendant both have purchased the disputed plot vide agreement dated 20th August, 1993 from one Rameshwar. The said agreement gives right to both the parties. The trial court while rejecting the application has already given liberty to petitioner to raise a objection about agreement dated 20th August, 1993 as and when it is admitted in evidence. The trial court has observed that it will be open for the defendant to say that agreement is void ab- initio and cannot be admitted in evidence. The trial court has further observed that looking to the present controversy involved in the case, the amendment sought in the written statement is not necessary for effective adjudication of the case. The reasons assigned by the trial court appears to be perfectly justified. In 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. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J.