//1// IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1618/2006 Hari Ram Saini & Another Versus Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli & Others Date of Order :: 5th August, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Gayatri Rathore for the petitioners Mr. G.P.Sharma for the respondents BY THE COURT: Admit. 2. Mr. G.P.Sharma, advocate appears on behalf of contesting respondents no. 3 to 7. The respondent no.2 has died. The service of respondent no.1 is dispensed with. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. This writ petition on behalf of the defendants is directed against impugned order dated 4.2.2006, whereby their application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement has been rejected. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for eviction in respect of rented premise on the ground of personal bonafide necessity and default also. //2// During the pendency of that suit, an application was filed by learned counsel for the defendants for amendment in the written statement on the ground that there was one vacant shop of the landlord towards northern side of the disputed property and three rooms behind it, which have been rented out to Cheen Cable Wala, Data Ram Gurjar and Vivek Tyagi on rent, therefore, this fact is relevant and necessary to be placed on record by way of an amendment in the written statement. The learned trial court rejected the said application vide order dated 4.2.2006 on the ground that application is not bonafide and it has been filed only to delay the proceedings. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred on behalf of the defendants. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the amendment sought in the written statement was material and relevant one and rent note executed by Vivek Tyagi in favour of the landlord has also been placed on record with the writ petition as Annexure-8 which shows that contention of defendant in the trial court was correct one. The trial court wrongly rejected the application on the ground that the evidence in //3// support of the amendment sought has not been produced in the case. 6. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents contended that although the present application was filed only to delay the proceedings, but with a view to expedite the trial of the suit, he has no objection in case a liberty is granted to defendant-petitioners to place on record a photocopy of the so-called rent note executed by Vivek Tyagi in favour of Govind Narayan Hari Prasad Sharma sons of late Shri Badri Prasad Sharma. He further contended that although the original rent note has not been placed on record but he will have no objection in case the defendant is permitted to lead secondary evidence i.e. photocopy of the rent note, as referred above and the same is exhibited in the case on behalf of the defendants and the same will be read irrespective of any amendment made in the written statement. 7. In view of the concession granted by learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that photostat copy of the rent note executed by Vivek Tyagi //4// in favour of Govind Narayan Hari Prasad Sharma may be permitted to be placed on record to the defendants and same may be exhibited and the same will be read in evidence irrespective of any amendment made in the written statement. 8. The suit was filed in the year 2001, therefore, it is directed that the trial court shall try to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of 9 months from today. 9. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK