1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Bajrang Lal Saini & Ors. Vs. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhunjhunu & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11269/2010) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 17, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.P.L. Sharma, for the petitioners. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2008, the plaintiff-respondent, Ramswaroop, filed a suit against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.39,605/- before the learned trial court. On 20.12.2008, the petitioners submitted their written statement and denied the contents of the said suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 2 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court for amending the written statement. In the application it was stated that the petitioners are agriculturists and their livelihood fully depends on agriculture. It was further stated that since the petitioners are agriculturists and they are having agricultural land bearing Khasra No.197 Rakba 0.80 Hectare and Khasra No.198 Rakba 0.17 Hectare, the suit pending before the learned trial court is not maintainable and the learned trial court has no jurisdiction. It was further stated that due to lack of knowledge and due to bonafide reasons, the aforesaid facts could not be mentioned in the written statement by the petitioners while these facts are necessary and essential for just and proper decision. Hence, they prayed for amendment of the written statement. However, vide order dated 14.07.2010, the learned trial court dismissed the said application. Thus, this petition before this Court. Mr. P.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has claimed that due to some inadvertence, the petitioners had forgotten to mention the fact in their written statement that they are agriculturists and their livelihood dependents on agriculture. Therefore, they had failed to raise the objection with regard to the 3 jurisdiction of the court. Subsequently, they moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amending the written statement and for bringing the fact of their being agriculturists on record and for raising their objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. However, without appreciating the fact that the said information was left inadvertently, the learned Judge had passed the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the said application. According to the learned Judge, the suit was filed in September, 2008 and the written statement was filed in December, 2008. In the written statement, the petitioners did not mention a word about their being agriculturists and did not raise the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. It is only after the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded, i.e. on 17.04.2010, after almost two years, that the petitioners certainly woke up to the fact that they are agriculturists. Even when the application for amendment of the written statement was filed, the petitioners did not submit any documentary evidence to show the 4 fact that they are the owner of Khasra No.197 Rakba 0.80 Hectare and Khasra No.198 Rakba 0.17 Hectare. Therefore, they approached the court only with the bald statement without substantiating their contention with any documentary evidence. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the petitioners cannot claim to be unaware of their profession as agriculturists, cannot claim to be unaware that they are required to submit certain revenue record to make out a prima facie case that they are, indeed, agriculturists. Hence, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that the application for amendment filed by the petitioners was not so much as to bring facts on record, but to merely delay the proceedings. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity, or any illegality in the impugned order dated 14.07.2010. In view of above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki