// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6749/2004 Prabhu Lal S/o Ghudiya Versus A.D.J., Hindoun City, Distt. Karouli and Others Date of Order ::: 23.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri L.L. Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1 None present for respondents No.2 to 4 Shri V.S. Chauhan, Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for cancellation of sale-deed dated 22nd December, 1993 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3. The suit was contested by all the defendants by filing a joint written-statement dated 23rd August, 1996. The issues were framed. Both the parties led their evidence and case was fixed for final arguments and, at this stage, the defendant No.1-petitioner filed an application for amendment in the written-statement, which was opposed by the defendants No.2 and 3 (the respondents No.5 and 6 in this writ petition) by filing a written-reply. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, a written-reply was filed wherein it was contended that amendment sought by the defendant No.1 may be allowed. The learned trial court, after hearing the parties, // 2 // dismissed the application for amendment in the written-statement filed on behalf of the defendant No.1-petitioner. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition preferred by the defendant No.1. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he moved an application for amendment in the written-statement wherein he has only explained the circumstances under which he executed the disputed sale-deed in favour of the defendants No.2 and 3, therefore, the amendment sought, ought to have been allowed by the trial court, which has wrongly been refused by the impugned order, which is liable to be set-aside. No one is present on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents No.2 to 4 in spite of service of notice. The learned counsel for the respondents No.5 and 6 contended that the amendment sought by the defendant No.1 in the written-statement is completely changing the nature of the defence taken in the written-statement initially. He contended that initially a joint written-statement was filed by all the defendants. The defendant No.1, in its application for amendment, has averred that he executed the impugned sale-deed with this understanding that the defendants No.2 and 3 will execute the sale-deed in respect of another land whereas there is no such agreement in this regard and if he is aggrieved with the so-called non-action of the defendants No.2 and 3 then the better course would have been to file a separate suit in this regard but he cannot be allowed to take such a plea in the joint written-statement filed on their behalf also. In case the said amendment is allowed, then it will // 3 // amount to an admission on their behalf in respect of so-called oral agreement which was never agreed upon by them, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in the light of the impugned order passed by the trial court and other documents annexed therewith and, after considering the same, I find that the impugned order passed by the trial court rejecting the application for amendment in the written-statement filed by the defendant No.1-petitioner, is absolutely justified and I do not find any illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the said order so as to interfere in it. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.5825/2004 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6749/2004 Prabhu Lal S/o Ghudiya Versus A.D.Jl., Hindoun City, Distt. Karouli and Others Date of Order ::: 23.04.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri L.L. Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.C. Gupta, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1 None present for respondents No.2 to 4 Shri V.S. Chauhan, Counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//