IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4162/2007 Vivek Malpani & Ors. Vs. Bajrang Lal & Ors. 12.9.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Sudesh Bansal, for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.1.2007 (Annexure-5) by which the amendment sought by the defendant to the written statement has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the the impugned order. So far as the amendment is concerned it is clarificatory in nature, inasmuch as in the original written statement the defendant had taken the plea that the amount under the agreement in question dated 29.01.1999 has been repaid and as such no cause of action survived to the petitioner plaintiff. By the amendment which has now been sought the defendant has alleged that the plaintiff petitioner for the same amount which is sought to be recovered under the agreement dated 29.01.1999, of which specific performance is sought in this suit had filed a suit before the court at Mumbai, which was decreed. As a result thereof in execution of the decree the defendant has satisfied the decree by paying the amount in execution as recorded in the order dated 19.5.2006. It is thus, the case that in both the events, in the original written statement as well as in the amended written statement, the plea is with regard to repayment of the same amount and the amendment is only clarificatory in nature and for giving the details regarding repayment. In the facts and circumstances therefore I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial court allowing the amendment. No case for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS