- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that identical writ petition has already been dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Court being SBCWP No.5604/2013 - M/s Ramprasad Indra Kumar Vs. Tarsem Lal & Anr, decided on 09.07.2013.
(2.) BY the impugned order dated 01.03.2013, the petitioner/tenant's application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written -statement at the stage of final arguments of the suit, has been rejected. A coordinate bench of this Court while dismissing the identical writ petition, referred to supra, has held as under: - "This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record by the petitioners. The respondent -plaintiffs preferred suits against the petitioner -defendants for eviction and possession of the shops in question and the said suits are pending consideration in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Raisingh Nagar. The petitioner -defendants have contested the suits by filing written statements and the learned trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and thereafter the evidence of the parties have also been completed and the matter was placed for final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner - defendants have filed the applications under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statements. That applications came to be allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.11.2010 on the basis of the judgment passed by this Court in case of Kamal Kishore Vs. State reported in 2008 (1) WLN (Raj.). The respondent -plaintiffs preferred SBCWP No.11928/2010 and 11929/2010 and assailed the validity of the order dated 10.11.2010 passed by the learned trial court allowing the applications filed by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statements. This Court allowed the aforesaid writ petitions vide orders datd 2.7.2012 while placing reliance on the Larger Bench judgment of this Court in case of Bhagchand Vs. Additional District Judge No.5, Kota and Ors reported in 2009(2) WLC 775 and remanded the case to the trial court for deciding the application preferred by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. On remand, before the trial court, the petitioners gave up proposed amendments in the written statement based on the provisions of Rent Control Act, 2001, but pressed the proposed amendments to the effect that the plaintiffs have not impleaded all the owners of the shops in question as plaintiffs in the plaints and, therefore, in the absence of necessary parties being impleaded as plaintiffs, the suits filed by the respondent -plaintiffs were not maintainable. The learned trial court in the impugned order has observed that the the respondent - plaintiffs has filed the suits under Section 106 of the Transfer of Properties Act and in these suits the petitioner -defendants filed their written statements on 20.11.2003 wherein they admitted that the shops in question are rented to them by the plaintiffs and as such they have admitted the relationship of tenants and landlords between them and the respondent. The learned trial court has further observed that on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the issues were framed on 20.4.2004 and the evidence of all the parties have also been concluded and the matter was ripe for final hearing on 31.5.2007 but then the petitioners moved the applications for amendment in the written statement on 25.8.2008. The learned trial court has further observed that in the applications for amendment in the written statements, the petitioners have failed to disclose the names of the co -owners of the shop who have not been impleaded as plaintiffs. The learned trial court has further observed that when the petitioners admitted the relationship of tenant and landlord between them and the respondent, the applications, preferred by the petitioners for amendment in the written statements taking the plea that all the owners of the shops in question were not made plaintiff, cannot be accepted. This Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has not committed any jurisdictional error in passing of the impugned orders in the facts and circumstances referred above and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed."
(3.) IN view of above, the present writ petition preferred by the petitioner/tenant/defendant is liable to be dismissed and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.;