GOVIND MATHUR - (1.) THIS petition for writ is preferred to question correctness of the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate No.3, Bhilwara rejecting an application preferred by the petitioner-defendant as per the provisions of Order 8 Rule 1-A sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') The factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the respondent landlord preferred a civil suit for eviction of the rented premises on the ground of bonafide necessity inter alia. The defendant after completion of the plaintiff's evidence
(2.) desired amendment in the written statement in view of certain documents filed at a subsequent stage. The amendments sought for were not permitted by the trial court vide order dted 18.01.2008. A writ petition giving challenge to the order aforesaid also came to be rejected by this court on 25.03.2008. Subsequent thereto, an application under Order 8 Rule 1-A(3) CPC was filed seeking permission to place on record the documents pertaining to which amendment was sought for and that came to be rejected by the trial court by the order impugned. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the document sought to be placed on record is a material piece of evidence to establish that the bonafide necessity claimed for is concocted one and the plaintiff is having suitable alternative accommodation. Heard learned counsel for the parties. From perusal of the order dated 22.07.2008, it is apparent that the trial court arrived at the conclusion that the intention of placing such document on record is only to cause delay in process. It is further observed that as a matter of fact, no amendment in written statement was permitted and therefore, no useful purpose shall be served by placing the document concerned on record.
(3.) I have examined the order. The document which is sought to be placed on record was made available to the petitioner-tenant on 21.09.2007. The petitioner then sought amendment in the written statement and those were rejected by the trial court and the order of the trial court too came to be affirmed by this court in the month of March 2008. No care was taken by the petitioner-defendant to place those documents on record while submitting application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Be that as it may, the instant petition for writ is preferred to invoke jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned does not suffer from any such material irregularity that may warrant interference while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, therefore, is dismissed. An expeditious disposal of the suit is desirable.;