CW-2839/08-Gyanmal @ Gyan Chand Vs. Addl. District Judge No.2 & Anr. Judgment dt.22.2.2010 1/2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2839/2008 Gyanmal alias Gyan Chand Vs. Addl. District Judge No.2 & Anr. Date of order : 22nd February, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Suresh Shrimali for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Saruparia for the respondents. ------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8.4.2008 whereby the learned appellate court rejected the application of the defendant-tenant seeking amendment in the written statement during the course of appeal vide order dated 8.4.2008. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant relying upon the judgment of this Court in case of Gajendra Singh Lodha Vs. Bhanwar Lal Kothari & Ors.- 2008 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1636 submitted that the amendment deserves to be allowed as the suit for eviction was filed for bonafide necessity of the landlord whereby during the pendency of the appeal alternate place became available to the landlord/ his sons. 4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent-landlord relying on the judgment of this Court in case of Dr. S.S. Kurana Vs. CW-2839/08-Gyanmal @ Gyan Chand Vs. Addl. District Judge No.2 & Anr. Judgment dt.22.2.2010 2/2 Mahaveer Prasad through L.Rs., - AIR 2004 Rajasthan 107 and in case of Phool Chand Vs. Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bikaner & Ors. - AIR 2008 Rajasthan 156 vehemently opposed the submissions of the learned counsel for petitioner-defendant and submitted that the said application was filed merely with a view to delay the trial and disposal of the matter and the suit is pending for 20 years and the plaintiff is unable to get eviction decree in his favour finally and, therefore, at this stage no amendment could be allowed by the learned appellate court. 5. Having heard learned counsels and in view of the judgments cited at the Bar and reasons given by the appellate court in the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned appellate court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the defendant-tenant under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. at the appellate stage in view of the alleged subsequent developments, the bonafide needs as it existed on the date of filing of the suit is relevant and, therefore, not allowing the amendment by taking into account the subsequent amendment cannot be reasonably faulted. 6. Therefore, this writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.85 babulal/