IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5375/2008 (Banwari Versus Mool Chand & Others) Date of Order :: 1 July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Ms. Gayatri Rathore for the petitioner BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The defendant – petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 5th October, 2002 (Annexure-2) passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu rejecting the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement. The submission of the defendant was that name of defendant no.4 - Prabhu Lal has been deleted from the array of defendants, whereas as per plaint itself it is clear that Prabhu Lal is in possession of the disputed land, therefore, defendants may be allowed to amend their written statement by raising an objection about non-joinder of necessary party. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same a revision petition was preferred but the same was also -2- dismissed by the Revenue Board. The aforesaid two orders have been challenged in this writ petition by the defendant - petitioner. 3. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of reasons assigned by both the courts below while rejecting the application filed by defendant – petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and after considering the same, I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders so as to interfere with them. Apart from above, it is also relevant to mention that the Revenue Board has already observed while dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner that the trial court will take into consideration the effect of deleting the name of defendant no.4 – Prabhu Lal at the time of final decision of the suit. 4. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR Jain), J.