1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3366 of 2010 Vinod Kumar Goyal son of late Shri Madan Lal Goyal VERSUS Ramesh Bhardwaj son of late Sh.Swaroop Narain Ji Bhardwaj & Anr. Date of Order :::: March 10th 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta, Counsel for the Petitioner *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By the impugned order while the learned Appellate Court rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment of the written-statement to incorporate the plea that in fact the plaintiff was residing with his wife at A-20 Barkat Nagar, Jaipur on the basis of the registration certificate of the Car purchased by the plaintiff after the decree passed in the suit on the basis of personal-bonafide-necessity on the ground that he was residing separately from his wife and required the premises in dispute for the said purpose. The learned Appellate Court while in fact deciding the application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. has directed that the learned Appellate Court would take into consideration the documents filed by the petitioner-defendant-tenant, along with the said application, which shows the residential address of the plaintiff as A- 2 20, Barkat Nagar, Jaipur, which document has come into existence after the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the case of the defendant-petitioner cannot be said to have been prejudiced and the learned Appellate Court having given the opportunities to the defendant to rely upon the said documents while hearing the appeal has taken sufficient care to protect the interest of the petition. I find no jurisdictional error so as to call for any interference in the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed summarily. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/