CW 4278/2004 - Vijoyendra Vs. Lal Mohammed & Anr. Judgment dt.03.12.2009 1/3 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4278/2004 Vijoyendra Vs. Lal Mohammed & Anr. Date of judgment : 03rd Dec., 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Ram Kishore for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Singhal for the respondents. ------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 5.8.2004 whereby the plaintiff-landlord's application under Order 6 Rule 17 seeking amendment in the plaint has been rejected by the leaned trial court. 3. The learned trial court in the impugned order has observed that since the issue relating to subletting has already been framed by the learned trial court and the proceedings of the said suit are at the stage of plaintiff's own evidence, the amendment sought by CW 4278/2004 - Vijoyendra Vs. Lal Mohammed & Anr. Judgment dt.03.12.2009 2/3 the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. is that for different years the shop was found by him in possession of different sublettees like M/s Ikbal Khan & Party Liquor Group, Churu for the year 2003 – 2004 and Mishri Khan & Party Liquor Group from 1.4.2004. The learned trial court has observed that no such amendment is necessary in the plaint because it is for the plaintiff to prove the case of subletting by the original tenant. No amendment in the pleading for that purpose regarding different alleged sublettees is required. 4. Having heard learned counsels and after perusal of the impugned order, this Court is satisfied that the learned trial court cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting such amendment application which could involve endless amendment in the pleadings for the different subletees being found in possession of the shops in questions by the plaintiff. It is needless to add that since it is for the plaintiff to prove his case of subletting by the original tenant and merely because different sublettees were found for different years, the amendment in the plaint is not required. He may CW 4278/2004 - Vijoyendra Vs. Lal Mohammed & Anr. Judgment dt.03.12.2009 3/3 prove the subletting in his own manner or adducing necessary evidence before the learned trial court and no amendment in this regard was required in the pleadings and, therefore, the learned trial court cannot be said to have committed any error in rejecting the said amendment application. 5. This writ petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly disposed of. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. iten No.25 babulal