- (1.) THE petitioner-original defendant has challenged the common order dated 7.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge(Fast Track) No.2, Beawar, (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) in Civil Suit No. 1/2012, in so far as the trial court granted the amendment sought by the respondent no. 2 to 4, under Or. VI Rule 17 of C.P.C.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent No. 2, on behalf of herself and as the natural guardian of respondents nos. 3 and 4 has filed the suit seeking eviction of disputed shop against the petitioner-defendant. The said suit has been resisted by the petitioner-defendant by filing written statement , wherein contention was raised interalia that the disputed shop was taken on rent by him from late Umrao Singh Karnawat, and after his death, all his legal heirs were entitled to recover the rent of disputed shop and that the plaintiff alone was not his legal heir. In view of the said contention, the respondent No.2, filed an application seeking amendment in the plaint for impleading other legal heirs of late Umrao Singh Karnawat and accordingly making necessary amendment in the plaint. It appears that the petitioner had also filed an application under Or. VIII Rule 1 and Order XIII Rule 1 and 2 for producing certain documents on record. The trial court vide the impugned common order dated 7.4.2012, has allowed the application of the petitioner as well as the application of the respondent no.2. Being aggrieved by the said common order, in so far as the trial court allowed the application of the respondent no.2, permitting the amendment in the plaint under Order VI Rule 17, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. S.L. Songara, for the petitioner that the petitioner had not denied the title of the respondent no.2, in the written statement and only contention raised by the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 was not the only legal heir of late Umrao Singh Karnawat but there were other legal heirs also, however, the trial court, misinterpreting the contentions raised by the petitioner, allowed the amendment sought by the respondent no.2. According to Mr.Songara,the impugned order passed by the trial court is illegal and deserves to be set-aside. The Court does not find any substance in the submissions made by learned counsel Mr.Songara for the petitioner. Admittedly, the trial of the suit has yet not begun, and therefore, the petitioner will have ample opportunity to file further written statement in reply to the amended plaint as well as to lead the evidence. The trial court has rightly held that the petitioner-defendant had failed to point out any prejudice being caused to him if the amendment was allowed and that the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to lead evidence. There being no illegality or infirmity in the said order passed by the trial court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of merits, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly, in limine. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. ;