- (1.) THE present petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur, (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Court) in Civil Regular Appeal No. 17/2003, whereby the Appellate Court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-defendant seeking amendment in the written statement under Or. VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. at the appellate stage.
(2.) THE respondent no.2-original plaintiff had filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant, seeking possession of the suit premises, which suit was decreed by the trial court, against which the petitioner-defendant had filed the appeal being no. 17/03, before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner-appellant filed an application seeking amendment in the written statement filed by him in the suit, for bringing subsequent events on record. The said application has been dismissed by the Appellate Court, against which the present petition has been filed. It has been submitted by learned counsel Mr. Bipin Gupta, for the petitioner that the Appellate Court though permitted the documents sought to be produced by the petitioner under Or. XLI R. 27 on record, has erred in not permitting the petitioner to make necessary amendment in the written statement as prayed for. According to him, the respondent-plaintiff had sold one shop vide the registered sale-deed dated 31.7.2006, to one Davendra Singh and also sold one another property by registered sale-deed dated 12.1.1993 to one Smt. Geeta Devi and therefore, the alleged ground of bonafide necessity for the disputed premises would not be available to the respondent-plaintiff. According to him, the original written statement was required to be amended accordingly. The learned counsel Mr. Gupta has placed reliance upon decisions of Apex court in case of VALLAMPATI KALAVATHI VS. HAJI ISMAIL AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1441, in case of RAMESH KUMAR VS. KESHO RAM AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 700 and in case of HASMAT RAI AND ANOTHER V. RAGOHUNATH PRASAD AIR 1981 SUPREME COURT 1711, in support of his submissions that the Appellate Court should have taken into consideration the subsequent events. Mr. Gupta has also relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of OM PRAKASH GUPTA VS. RANBIR B. GOYAL (2002)2 SUPREME COURT CASES 256, to submit that the pleadings having regard to the amendment for bringing on record the subsequent events can be taken into consideration. Mr.Gupta has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of SUNIL GOYAL AND ANOTHER VS. ADDItIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. 8 JAIPUR CItY, JAIPUR AND OTHERS 2011(3)WESTERN LAW CASES(RAJ.)24, and submitted that necessary directions may be given to the Appellate Court to take into consideration the subsequent events as prayed for by the petitioner-defendant.
(3.) IN the instant case, it appears that the appeal against the decree of eviction passed against the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Court. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner-appellant had submitted an application under Or. XLI R. 27 for taking on record the copies of the registered sale-deeds which the respondent plaintiff had allegedly executed in respect of his other properties. The said application was granted by the appellate Court and the said documents have already been permitted to be taken on record. Thereafter the application was submitted by the petitioner-appellant in the Appeal, seeking amendment in the written statement under Or. VI R. 17 of C.P.C., which has been rejected by the Appellate Court. This Court fails to understand as to how such an application seeking amendment in the pleadings of the suit is permissible at the appellate stage, when the suit has already been disposed of on merits.;