1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.734 OF 2011. (WAMAN A. GULHANE..VS.. VINESH A. PATEL) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P.A. Kadu, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. H.P. Jain h/f. Mr. Patil, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 17, 2011. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 18.01.2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The petitioner is the original defendant. The respondent-landlord had filed a suit against the petitioner for eviction and possession. The matter was decided against the petitioner by the trial Court and a decree of eviction was passed. In Regular Civil Appeal filed by the petitioner, the matter was remanded to the trial Court to decide the same on the question of availability of the premises to the landlord and the question of comparative hardship. The first appellate Court specifically directed the trial Court to decide the matter before 31st March, 2011. Though the trial Court was directed by the first appellate Court to decide the matter by time bound programme an application for amendment of the written statement was filed by the petitioner. Though the petitioner had stated in the written statement that the respondent was running his business of tobacco in the name and style of “Phulabhai Chaturbhai Patel”, in the proposed amendment the petitioner wanted to take a contrary stand by stating that the plaintiff was serving in the shop of his uncle 2 named, Phulabhai Chaturbhai Patel which was a tobacco shop. It was stated in the proposed amendment that in case the petitioner was evicted from the suit premises greater hardship would be caused to the petitioner in comparison to the hardship which would be caused to the plaintiff. It was stated that the plaintiff owns a house near the shop and there was ample vacant space for the construction of his shop. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the reply filed thereto, rejected the amendment application by the impugned order dated 18.01.2011. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the amendment application as the facts stated in the proposed amendment were already existing in the original written statement filed by the petitioner. Moreover, some of the facts stated in the proposed amendment had the effect of nullifying the admissions given by the petitioner in his cross- examination. The trial Court held and rightly so that the proposed amendment was not necessary for effectively deciding the controversy between the parties and it was likely to cause great injustice to the plaintiff. Moreover, some of the facts stated in the proposed amendment were contrary to the facts stated in the original written statement and such an amendment could not have been permitted specially when the parties had tendered the evidence and the matter was remanded to the trial Court with a specific direction that the same should be decided before 31st March, 2011. It was also not stated in the amendment application as to why the petitioner failed to state the facts stated in the proposed amendment at an earlier point of time or for that matter at the time of filing the original written statement. In this matter, specially when the evidence was already tendered by 3 the parties and the matter was remanded on the short issue of the availability of the space with the landlord and the comparative hardship, with a direction to the trial Court to decide the matter before 31st March, 2011, it appears that the petitioner / tenant deliberately filed an application with a view to protract the proceedings. The judgment reported in AIR 2009 SC 2544 (Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and Anr.) and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..