1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1622/2008 (Rajendra Pal Singh Vs. Dr. Raghuveer Singh & Ors.) Date of order : 19.03.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. B.M. Aggarwal, for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.2.2008 passed by Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Appeal No.10/06 whereby the application for amendment in the written statement filed by the petitioner was rejected. According to the facts, the respondent No.1 and 2 filed an application before the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar on 17.8.2004 praying for decree for eviction against the petitioner from Shop No.2 situated in House No.26, Public Park, Sri Ganganagar. The Rent Tribunal dismissed the 2 application filed by the respondent No.1 and 2. Thereafter, against the said dismissal of their application filed for eviction, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Rent Tribunal by the respondent No.1 and 2. In the said appeal, the petitioner respondent filed an application for amendment in the written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that under Section 21 (3) of the Rent Control Act, 2001, there is wide discretion left with the Tribunal to regulate its own procedure. Therefore, Section 21 (3) of the Act of 2001 does not put any restriction upon the Rent Appellate Tribunal to allow the application. Further, it is submitted that the guidelines are to be taken from the Code of Civil Procedure in the enumerated matter, which has not been done by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Therefore, the order impugned is totally erroneous. Hence, the same deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner – plaintiff while inviting the attention of this Court towards judgment rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7377/2007 decided on 3.3.2008 submits that the controversy involved in this case is squarely covered with the above judgment in which this Court has held that the amendment in the written statement is not 3 permissible at appellate stage. I have perused the aforesaid judgment. In my opinion, the controversy involved is squarely covered by the said decision rendered in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7377/07 decided on 3.3.2008. Accordingly, this writ petition also stands dismissed in terms of order dated 3.3.2008 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.7377/2007. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun