IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4423 of 2004. Kanhiya Lal son of Shri Peshu Mal Singhi. VERSUS The Presiding Officer, Court of Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur City & Another Date Of Order ::: 24/03/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. Giriraj Bardhar, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Sudesh Bansal, Counsel for the respondents BY THE COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/respondent no.2 (Rupendra Kumar Sharma) filed a suit for eviction in respect of rented premise against the defendant/petitioner in the year, 1990, which was decreed by the trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 06.05.2002. Being aggrieved with the same, the defendant preferred an appeal, and during the pendency of that appeal, the defendant/ petitioner filed an application on 19.08.2003 under Section 107 read with Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151, C.P.C. for the amendment in the written statement. It was contended in the application that the plaintiff has started his business in the name of S.& R. Agency with effect from 15.08.2003. The said firm was registered on 22.07.2000. The plaintiff has purchased number of vehicles in its business. He, therefore, contended that the personal necessity of the plaintiff has now been satisfied, therefore, he may be permitted to amend the written statement. The said application was contested by the plaintiff/respondent, wherein it was contended that the Firm S.& R. Agency was registered way back on 22.07.2000 and the suit remained pending in the trial Court till 06.05.2002, when a decree of eviction was passed, but no efforts were made for filing an application for amendment in the written statement. It was also contended that the application is malafide and not bonafide. The applicant is a tenant and he wants to delay the proceedings of the suit. A decree of eviction has already been passed against him, therefore, it was prayed that the application is liable to be dismissed. The trial Court vide its impugned order dated 17.05.2004 dismissed the application for amendment in the written statement. Hence, this writ petition has been preferred on behalf of the defendant. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amendment sought in the written statement was necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, whereas the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial Court has considered the application of the petitioner in detail and there is no ground for interference in the impugned order by this Court under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment dated 17.05.2004 passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has passed a detailed and speaking order while considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The S.& R. Agency was registered on 22.07.2000 and the defendant's evidence was going-on up to 24.04.2002, but no application for amendment in the written statement was filed. The decree of eviction was passed by the trial Court on 06.05.2002. The trial Court has considered the bonafides of the defendant and has observed that no efforts were made by the defendant to move an application immediately during the pendency of the suit itself. The trial Court has assigned good and cogent reasons for dismissal of the application of the petitioner for amendment in the written statement at this stage. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/