1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7047/05 Kunwar Verendra Singh vs. Nagar Nigam Jaipur & Anr. Date of order : 18/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri L.L. Gupta for the petitioner. Shri Satish Kumar Khandal for the respondent no.1. ****** Respondent no.2 being the court concerned, order of which is under challenge, service thereupon is dispensed with. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the matter is heard finally and is being disposed of by this order. The writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.4.2005 whereby the application of the plaintiff-petitioner for amendment of the plaint was dismissed. In fact, two suits were filed by the two brothers against the same defendant and simultaneously their application seeking amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was made. The basis for such application was 2 that the plaintiff has come to know from the written statement that the disputed plot has been alloted to the third party. While in the other suit, the disputed plot was B-131 which was allotted to Niraj while in the present suit, the disputed plot is B-130 which is alloted to Bhonri Lal. The learned trial court rejected the application holding that since the suit was filed in 1995 this could not be allowed to the amended at such a belated stage. The brother of the petitioner, who is plaintiff in the other suit, Kunwar Narain Singh has filed Writ Petition No.7090/05 against the similar order dated 19.4.05 passed in the other suit. This Court by its judgment dated 4.1.2006 allowed the aforesaid writ petition and consequently permitted the amendment in the plaint on the premise that since the fact about the allotment came to the knowledge of the plaintiff-petitioner only from the written statement filed in the year 2003, proviso to Rule 17 of the Order 6 CPC would be attracted and therefore the Court held that the trial court committed an error 3 in refusing amendment of the plaint on the ground of delay in filing the application for amendment. As regards the objection that the consequential prayer for cancellation of allotment would be barred by limitation, it would be open for the defendants to raise such objection after the said amendment is allowed and therefore Municipal Corporation is not in any manner going to be affected by such amendment. Learned counsel for the respondent could not dispute that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of this Court. The writ petition is therefore allowed for the same reason for which the earlier writ petition was allowed. The amendment prayed for is permitted to be made in the plaint. The defendant-non-petitioner would however be at liberty to raise the objection of limitation if and when they file their written statement which shall be dealt with by the learned trial court in accordance with law. 4 The writ petition is accordingly allowed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/