- (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. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent vehemently opposed the prayer and argued that suit for eviction was filed in the year 1985 and number of applications under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC were filed by the petitioner for amendment in the suit. Now the matter is at final stage and again instant application has been filed to delay the trial, therefore, the trial court has rightly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for amendment in the written statement. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the order passed by the trial court is based on cogent reasons in which there is no illegality or perversity, therefore, order impugned does not require any interference, in view of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. Admittedly, in the suit, application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed. The suit was filed for eviction on the ground of bonafide necessity in the year 1985. It also emerges from the facts that prior to filing present application, some more applications were filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the suit. In my opinion, 27 years have passed and plaintiff is waiting for final adjudication of his case, therefore, obviously, at this stage petitioner cannot be permitted to file such application to delay the trial. It is true that subsequent events can be considered at appropriate stage but in the present case, suit is pending since last 27 years, therefore, obviously during pendency of the suit, some events took place, but evidence cannot be taken on record, therefore, it is not thought proper by the trial court to allow such type of applications for amendment in the suit on the ground that new facts arose during pendency of the suit. In view of above, apparently, no error has been committed by the trial court in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement, therefore, while following the judgment rendered in Shalini Shyam Shetty (Supra), the writ petition is hereby dismissed. ;