1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6243/2007 {Tejumal & Another Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Another} S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/2007 {Tejumal Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Another} Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. C.C. Ratnu for the petitioners Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. Mr. R.K. Agarwal appears for respondent no.2. The respondent no.1 is only a formal party, therefore, its service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Both the writ petitions are in between both the parties and the controversy involved in the same is also one and same, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. 4. The plaintiff-respondent no.2 filed two separate suits against defendant- petitioners, one in respect of eviction from the shop and another in respect of eviction from one room and go-down. During the pendency of both the suits the defendant-petitioners 2 filed one application on 1st November, 2006 for amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereas in another case the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed on 1st March, 2007. The application was contested by the plaintiff-respondent by filing a written reply. The learned trial court vide impugned order dated 24th July, 2007 dismissed both the applications. Hence these two writ petitions by defendant-petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that so far as the amendment in the suit relating to eviction from shop is concerned, the plaintiff has already obtained a permission for raising the construction of 10 shops, whereas in another suit relating to one room and go-down he wants to amend his suit by incorporating a fact that plaintiff has already purchased a plot in Vaishali Nagar, therefore, he has no necessity of the rented premise. He, therefore, contended that these amendments were necessary to be brought on record but trial court committed an illegality in dismissing the applications filed by the defendants. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiff- respondents contended that the facts which want to be incorporated by way of an amendment in 3 the written statement by defendants are already exist in the written statement, therefore, there is no need to allow the amendment sought for in the written statement. He contended that although the trial court has not rejected the application on this ground but a perusal of written statement filed on behalf of the petitioners will show that the said facts have already been incorporated in the written statement as they were already in existence at that time. He further contended that the trial court has considered the amendment sought by defendant in the written statement and thereafter rightly rejected the same looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order and the relevant document annexed with the writ petition and after considering the same, I find that the reasons assigned by the court below for rejecting the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC appears to be perfectly justified and no interference is called for in the said order. The order passed by the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or any jurisdictional error 4 in it. There is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. Cost is made easy. 9. The above referred two writ petitions have been decided by this common order, therefore, one copy of this order may be placed on record in other writ petition. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 341/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6243/2007 {Tejumal & Another Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Another} S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 366/2007 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6286/2007 {Tejumal Versus Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Another} Date of Order :: 14th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. C.C. Ratnu for the petitioners Mr. R.K. Agarwal for the respondents BY THE COURT: Consequent upon the dismissal of writ petitions, the stay applications, filed therewith, do not survive and the same also stand disposed of. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK