SHANTI LAL Vs. RATAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner defendant against the order dated 26.03.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D) No.1, Bhilwara by which the trial court rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that during pendency of the suit for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity, an important fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner that plaintiff constructed a building which is three storey show room where he is pursing business. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said important fact is required to be incorporated in the written statement because it is necessary for adjudication of this suit filed by the respondent plaintiff against the petitioner defendant but the learned trial court rejected the said application while following judgment rendered by this Court reported in 2011(3) WLC (Raj.) 24 and judgment reported in 2008(2) DNJ 856 and held that such amendment at this belated stage cannot be permitted on the ground that in the event of pendency of suit for years together it is obvious subsequent events occur but those facts cannot be taken on record as an evidence. The trial court observed that permitting such type of amendment is endless job, according to petitioner, it is not correct adjudication because every important aspect of the matter is required to be taken into consideration therefore, obviously, learned trial court has committed an error while rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Therefore, it is submitted that order impugned may be quashed and application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the petitioner defendant in Original suit No. 79/92 may kindly be allowed.