// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ petition No.9320/2009 {Udhavdas Vs. Kishandev and Another} Date of Order ::: 27.08.2009 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Rajesh Kapoor, Counsel for petitioner Shri G. Badhdar, Counsel for respondent No.1 #### By the Court:- At request of both the parties, arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally. Plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for eviction against defendant-petitioner in the trial court, which has been decreed on the ground of personal bona-fide necessity. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending in the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur; in the said appeal, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to amend the written-statement on the ground that another property of the plaintiff is being sold and an advertisement has been issued in this regard, and in the said advertisement the telephone number of the plaintiff has been given, // 2 // therefore, the plaintiff has no bona-fide necessity and this fact, being relevant, is necessary to be incorporated in the written- statement. The first appellate court rejected the application of the petitioner vide order dated 25th May, 2009. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first appellate court committed an illegality in dismissing the application of the tenant-petitioner for amendment in the written-statement as the amendment sought was necessary and material in the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the impugned order be set-aside and the amendment sought be allowed. Learned counsel for the respondent defended the impugned order passed by the first appellate court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the reasons assigned by the first appellate court in the impugned order. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that a plea with regard to so-called another property was taken in the written- // 3 // statement before the trial court itself and it was contended that the said property is lying vacant, therefore, the plaintiff has no bona- fide necessity in respect thereto; however, the trial court recorded a finding that the said property does not belong to the plaintiff but it belongs to his uncle. The learned counsel for the petitioner further admits that the so-called advertisement, which has been made basis for filing of the present application, has not been issued in the name of the plaintiff, but only his telephone number has been given on it. In these circumstances, it is clear that even as per the so-called advertisement it cannot be said that another property belongs to the plaintiff. Thus, I find that the amendment sought in the written-statement is not at all material and relevant and the appellate court rightly rejected the application of the defendant-appellant. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//