// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1796/2008 Shri Tara Chand S/o late Shri Gopal Lal Ji Versus Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 04.07.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Suresh Goyal, Counsel for petitioner Shri Ajay Shukla, Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- Admit. At the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally and being disposed of. Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession, injunction and mesne-profit in respect of disputed property against defendant- petitioner wherein the defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written-statement. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 7th February, 2008 (Annexure- 4), which is under challenge in this writ petition filed on behalf of the defendant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial court has committed an // 2 // illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner whereas the nature of the suit was not going to be changed and so far as the delay in filing the application is concerned, the same could have been compensated by way of costs to the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents defended the impugned order and contended that the application filed by the petitioner was not bona-fide and it was filed only to delay the proceedings relating to possession of the disputed property, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order passed by the trial court and also other documents annexed with the writ petition. The present suit for possession, injunction and mesne-profit was filed in the year 1995 wherein written-statement was filed by the defendant-petitioner. The issues were framed in the year 1998. The plaintiff's evidence was closed in 2003. The matter was pending for defendant's evidence and during that period the present application was filed for amendment in the written-statement. The plaintiffs filed reply to the application on 18th January, 2008. // 3 // The application for amendment has been filed on the basis of survey-certificate (Exhibit-9), which was placed on the record long back and the defendant had knowledge about it since then. The defendant has claimed counter-claim by way of amendment in the written-statement. The trial court has observed that the nature of the suit will be changed in case the amendment in the written-statement is allowed. The trial court has also observed that the case of the plaintiff would be prejudiced in case the amendment sought by the defendant is allowed. After considering the reasons assigned by the trial court and the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties, I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court is perfectly justified. There is no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in it so as to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//