S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13285/2010 Mohan Lal Vs. The Civil Judge (J.D.) and Anr. Dated : 06.10.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Manu Bhargava, for the petitioner. *** By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to set aside the impugned order dated 16th August, 2010 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.) & Judicial Magistrate, Kathumar, Alwar, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. 2. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully scanned the relevant material including the impugned order on record, it is noticed that the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC imploring the Court to permit him to make amendment in the written statement, which were necessary for the just decision of the case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that earlier suit was filed by the father of the respondent No.2 for eviction against the petitioner in which tenancy was stated to have started from “Hindi Tithi” and respondent No.2 also filed an application under Section 13(5) of Rent Control Act in the previous suit on the basis of “Hindi Tithi” and the -2- petitioner also deposited the rent in the Bank Account as per “Hindi Tithi”. Hence, in view of these circumstances, the amendment sought by the petitioner was necessary for the just decision of the case. 4. Learned trial Court is found to have dismissed the application on the ground that the suit was pending at the stage of final arguments. So far as the facts of the earlier suit are concerned, they were already in the know of the petitioner and if the tenancy had started w.e.f.“Hindi Tithi”, the petitioner could very well incorporate the fact of “Hindi Tithi” in his written statement. The petitioner got awakened at the stage when the suit was to be finally adjudicated by the learned trial Court, which does not suggest his bonafides. I am in unison with the finding of the learned trial Court that the petitioner sought amendment in the written statement and filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC with a view to procrastinate the trial of the suit. I also concur with the view of the learned trial Court that in case this amendment is not allowed, the same will not affect the substratum of the suit. The impugned order rendered by the learned trial Court is found to be just and proper. It suffers from no infirmity and the same warrants no intervention. -3- 5. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item No.31