Arun Bhansali, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No. 2 appearing in person. This writ petition is directed against the order dt. 18.12.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order VI, Rule 17 CPC has been rejected.
(2.) IN a suit seeking eviction of the petitioner, after the issues were framed, an application was filed seeking amendment in the written statement to take a plea that the plaintiffs have neither filed any application before the Municipal Board nor any permission has been granted by the Municipal Board for reconstruction, for which the eviction was being sought. Further amendment was sought to plead that the plaintiffs have not filed any report regarding the dilapidated condition of the premises from an authorised Engineer. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the plea sought to be incorporated in the written statement is not required to be pleaded and the petitioner is free to put questions in the cross -examinations and argue the same at the time of final arguments.
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that though it is open for the petitioners to put the questions in the cross -examinations and argue the same at the time of final arguments, however, if the petitioners want to lead evidence on the said aspect, in absence of the pleadings, he may not be permitted to lead evidence.;