CW 2430/07 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2430/07 Kailash Chand Singhaniya Versus Shashi Kant Dandariya & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 08/05/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. M.K. Jain, for petitioner Mr. Vigyan Shah for Mahendra Shah, for respondent *** Matter has come up on application U/Art.226 (3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte stay order passed by this court dt.23rd August, 2007. But, with the consent of parties, it is finally heard at the stage of admission. Instant petition is directed against the order dt.3rd February, 2007 passed by learned Tribunal rejecting his application seeking amendment in the written statement U/O.6 R.17 CPC. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a petition u/s.9 for eviction on the ground of his reasonable and bonafide necessity before learned Tribunal in August, 2004. After service of notice, the petitioner filed written statement. However, no such objection was raised with regard to family settlement which has been placed on CW 2430/07 [2] record that it cannot be exhibited without being registered u/s.17 of Indian Registration Act and it cannot be taken into evidence. During the course of trial at a later stage when the matter was at the stage of recording evidence of plaintiff, application was filed U/O.6 R.17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement which was dis-allowed by the learned Tribunal under order impugned with cost of Rs.100/- dt.3rd February, 2007 [Ann.5]. However, the respondent along with reply has placed an order on record dt.24th April, 2006 [Ann.R/1] which was passed by learned Tribunal on application filed by petitioner raising objection that their family settlement cannot be exhibited and be taken into evidence before the Tribunal on the premise that compliance of Sec.17 of Indian Registration Act has not been made. This application filed by the petitioner was rejected by a detail order on 24th April, 2006 with cost of Rs.100/- and after rejection of aforesaid application only to delay the proceedings, application was filed by him seeking amendment in the written statement Ann.3. This fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner that earlier application filed raising self-same objection with respect to Ex.2 which was with regard to family settlement filed by the petitioner, has already been dismissed by a CW 2430/07 [3] detail order with cost of Rs.100/-. Counsel for petitioner submits that amendment which he is seeking in the written statement, is a pure legal question and if he is not permitted at the present stage, it will cause great prejudice to him. Counsel for respondent while supporting the order impugned, further submits that later amendment in the written statement was sought by the petitioner only to delay proceedings and the self-same objection was disallowed by learned Tribunal vide its order dt.24th April, 2006 with cost of Rs.100/- and this relevant material has been concealed by the petitioner which dis- entitles him from availing discretionary remedy of this Court available U/Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard counsel for parties and examined the material on record. As regards document exhibited before learned Tribunal which is a family settlement, objection was raised by the petitioner by filing application that it cannot be exhibited unless compliance of Sec.17 of Indian Registration Act CW 2430/07 [4] is made. This objection was resisted by the respondent and after hearing parties, learned Tribunal finally observed that in the facts of instant case looking to the nature of document, its registration u/s.17 of Indian Registration Act is not required while passing a detail order Ann.R/1 dt.24th April, 2006. Indeed, the order referred to has not been assailed by the petitioner and this fact has also not been disclosed while filing instant petition that the self-same objection has already been rejected by learned Tribunal vide order dt.24th April, 2006 and this being a material concealment on the part of writ petitioner that in the opinion of this court certainly dis-entitles him from availing discretionary jurisdiction U/Art.226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Apart from it, the question raised by the petitioner with regard to document referred to as placed before learned Tribunal as Ex.2 cannot be said to be a pure legal question which cannot be permitted to be incorporated by seeking amendment in the written statement after trial has commenced. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA2430CW07 8-5.doc