1 D.B.Civil Special Appeal(Writ) No.1302/2008 Man Mohan Das Mundara V/s Addl.Civil Judge (SD) & ors. 11.8.2008 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr.Narayan Roy Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Mr.Alok Garg for the appellant. Mr.Bihari Lal Agarwal for the respondents. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 3rd July, 2008 whereby the writ application of the appellant, who was defendant before the trial court, against order of the trial court dated 28th November, 2007 seeking amendment of his written statement, was rejected. Shri Alok Garg, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge of this Court was not justified in rejecting the writ application and upholding the order of trial court merely on the ground of delay without appreciating the fact that three more properties have come into the possession of the plaintiff; one on 29th May, 1998, second on 11th October, 2001 and third in the year 2003, which satisfies his personal bonafide necessity. Learned counsel further submits that it is settled law that if the amendment sought for is otherwise justified, the same cannot be denied for reason of delay alone. Moreover, the appellant-defendant undertakes to only file written statement alongwith certified copies of the orders of the court upon which he 2 places reliance and does not want to adduce any evidence. Amendment application earlier filed by the appellant was based on an altogether different ground. Shri Beharilal Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant-defendant was earlier owner of one property known as Anand Bhawan and the disputed premises let out to him by the plaintiff were actually meant for the use of parking for the dwellers of the Anand Bhawan. The appellant defendant has since sold the Anand Bhawan to a third party and in fact, the defendant has sub-let the premises in question to such third party. The defendant earlier also on 23rd July 2005 filed an application seeking amendment in written statement, which was dismissed by trial court on 3rd August, 2005. This application was filed at a very belated stage much after the matter was already fixed for final arguments. The defendant had been absenting himself from the court on certain dates and he has filed the application to delay the trial of the case. Learned counsel inviting attention to the cross examination of the defendant before the trial court, submitted that he has admitted that he sold the Anand Bhawan and therefore, he sub-let the disputed premises to third party and thus, his own need is not bonafide. It was further argued that it is for the plaintiff to choose which of his premises would be convenient and suitable for his bonafide necessity. Since the application filed by the defendant appellant seeking amendment of his written statement was not bonafide, the same 3 was rightly rejected by the trial court and the writ application was also rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders, we do not find any error either in the order of the trial court or in the order of the learned Single Judge because the amendment sought to be made relates to the year 1998, 2001 and 2003 and the application seeking amendment, which has been made after rejection of first such application at a stage when the matter was proceeding for final arguments from 23rd April, 2005 onwards. This itself shows that the purpose of amendment was only to delay the trial and the delay in making the application assumes more significance if it is analysed with the fact that the appellant-defendant himself has sub-let the property in question. We do not therefore find any error in the approach taken by the learned trial court and as also the learned Single Judge of this Court. This appeal is therefore dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq)J. (Narayan Roy)C.J. Parmar