1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Radheyshyam Saini Vs. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhunjhunu & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11236/2010) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 17, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.P.L. Sharma, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: Aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2010, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.09.2008, the plaintiff-respondent, Ramswaroop, filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.37,010/- before the learned trial court. On 20.12.2008, the petitioner submitted his written statement and denied the contents of the said suit. During the pendency of the said suit, the petitioner moved an application under Order 6 Rule 2 17 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court for amending the written statement. In the application it was stated that the petitioner is an agriculturist and his livelihood fully depends on agriculture. It was further stated that since the petitioner is an agriculturist and he is having agricultural land bearing Khasra No.197 Rakba 0.80 Hectare and Khasra No.198 Rakba 0.17 Hectare, the suit pending before the learned trial court is not maintainable and the learned trial court has no jurisdiction. It was further stated that due to lack of knowledge and due to bonafide reasons, the aforesaid facts could not be mentioned in the written statement by the petitioner while these facts are necessary and essential for just and proper decision. Hence, he prayed for amendment of the written statement. However, vide order dated 14.07.2010, the learned trial court dismissed the said application. Thus, this petition before this Court. Mr. P.L. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has claimed that due to some inadvertence, the petitioner had forgotten to mention the fact in his written statement that he is an agriculturist and his livelihood dependents on agriculture. Therefore, he had failed to raise the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. Subsequently, he moved an application 3 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for amending the written statement and for bringing the fact of his being an agriculturist on record and for raising his objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. However, without appreciating the fact that the said information was left inadvertently, the learned Judge had passed the impugned order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has given cogent reasons for rejecting the said application. According to the learned Judge, the suit was filed in September, 2008 and the written statement was filed in December, 2008. In the written statement, the petitioner did not mention a word about his being an agriculturist and did not raise the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the court. It is only after the evidence of the plaintiff was concluded, i.e. on 17.04.2010, after almost two years, that the petitioner certainly woke up to the fact that he is an agriculturist. Even when the application for amendment of the written statement was filed, the petitioner did not submit any documentary evidence to show the fact that he is the owner of Khasra No.197 Rakba 4 0.80 Hectare and Khasra No.198 Rakba 0.17 Hectare. Therefore, he approached the court only with the bald statement without substantiating his contention with any documentary evidence. Thus, the learned Judge was certainly justified in concluding that the petitioner cannot claim to be unaware of his profession as an agriculturist, cannot claim to be unaware that he is required to submit certain revenue record to make out a prima facie case that he is, indeed, an agriculturist. Hence, the learned Judge is certainly justified in concluding that the application for amendment filed by the petitioner was not so much as to bring facts on record, but to merely delay the proceedings. Hence, this Court does not find any perversity, or any illegality in the impugned order dated 14.07.2010. In view of above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki