1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2708/2009. Banshi Lal. VERSUS Mohan Lal. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2708/2009. Banshi Lal. VERSUS Mohan Lal. 12.08.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.B.L.Mandhana, for the petitioner. Mr.Praveen Jain, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 10.02.2009, the application submitted by the defendant-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written statement has been rejected. The short question for consideration before the learned court below was whether as alleged by the plaintiff-landlord, the son of the landlord is unemployed and on that basis the plaintiff-landlord is entitled to a decree of eviction on the ground of personal bonafide necessity of his son. Admittedly, the defendant has denied in the written statement that the son of the plaintiff is not unemployed and he is working somewhere, as alleged in the written statement. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant was able to lay his hands upon certain so-called admissions of the plaintiff in support of the plea raised by the defendant that the son of the defendant-landlord is employed which would counter the plea raised by the plaintiff in the suit. It is these so-called admissions which the defendant-petitioner sought to incorporate 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2708/2009. Banshi Lal. VERSUS Mohan Lal. by amending his written statement. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the learned trial court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order, I am of the view that the application deserves to be dismissed. The defendant-petitioner has already raised the plea rebutting the case of the plaintiff with regard to the fact of employment/unemployment of the plaintiff's son, for whose necessity the suit has been filed. An issue, admittedly, has been framed in that behalf as to whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises bonafidely for the requirement of his son who is unemployed. In view of the above, there is no substance in the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. The defendant-petitioner would always have a right to lead evidence in support of his case before the learned trial court and the amendment is more in the nature of evidence rather than being a statement of fact. The cardinal principle of pleadings being that the pleadings should contain a concise statement of facts and not evidence, the application for amendment in the facts and circumstances has rightly been rejected. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.