CW 6802/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.6802/2010 Lala Ram Saini Versus Ram Sahai Saini & Anr 2-Civil Writ Petition No.6808/2010 Lala Ram Saini Versus Ram Sahai Saini & Anr Date of Order : 14/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ajay Goyal, for petitioner. Instant petitions have been filed by landlord (plaintiff) assailing orders dt. 10/04/2010 whereby applications independently filed U/O 6, R.17, CPC (CWP-6802/2010) seeking amendment in his application for eviction and so also U/O 7, R.14, CPC (CWP-6808/2010) for taking documents on record were rejected by Rent Tribunal, Alwar in Rent Appl.44/2007. Petitioner/plaintiff filed application on 23/04/2007 seeking eviction of tenant (respondent-1) from rented premise on the ground of default, personal & bonafide need for his two sons (Pradeep & Harsh Saini). Along with application for eviction, relevant documents & affidavits were also produced and after plaintiff & both of his sons were cross examined; thereafter application seeking amendment in the suit for eviction was filed on 22/04/09 and simultaneously application U/O 7, R.14, CPC for taking documents on record was also filed which were rejected vide two CW 6802/10 //2// different orders dt.22/04/2010. As regards, application U/O 6, R.17, CPC, seeking amendment, it was observed by the Tribunal that in the application seeking eviction and so also affidavits/documents appended thereto, it was specifically averred that his two sons named (supra) are undergoing their ITI training and both of whom were cross examined and thereafter application seeking amendment in the eviction application was filed to amend that both have completed their training; which cannot at this stage be permitted particularly after stage of cross examination having been over. As regards, other application filed U/O 7 R.14 CPC, for taking documents on record in regard to amendment being sought for in application U/O 6, R.17, CPC, since permission was not granted for amendment as sought for, the Tribunal considered it proper to reject application for taking documents on record, simultaneously vide order impugned. Having considered contentions of Counsel for petitioner and gone through orders impugned, this Court does not find any manifest error being committed by the Tribunal which may call for interference in the orders impugned. Consequently, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p2/ 6802CW2010May14DsRent(2).doc