Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dt. 24.03.2006 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement was dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant -petitioners submits that application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in the written statement is to be decided liberally. The amendment in the written statement is for advancement of cause and to bring true facts on record. Learned Court below dismissed the application after discussing the facts on merit, though jurisdiction does not lie to discuss the issue on merit while deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
(2.) A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Bank vs. ABN AMRO Bank N.V . Ors., : (2007) 6 SCC 167 has been given. It is further stated that delay in making application for amendment in written statement is not fatal. The application for amendment cannot be rejected on the aforesaid ground. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Baldev Singh & Ors. etc. vs. Manohar Singh & Ors. etc., reported in : JT 2006 (7) SC 139 has been referred. It is stated that amendment sought in the written statement was to the effect that plaintiff -non -petitioner No. 1 has started new business thus very ground to seek eviction no more survives. Another amendment was regarding availability of sufficient place in the same premises thus there exists no bona fide necessity for eviction. Both the amendments were material and should have been allowed. This is moreso when application for amendment in the plaint and written statement cannot be decided with the same yardstick. For amendment in the written statement, the Courts are required to take liberal approach whereas same yardstick may not apply for amendment in the plaint. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order dt. 24.03.2006 may be set aside by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand, submits that impugned order was rightly passed by the Court below considering the fact that amendment was sought after initiation of proceedings.;