ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) Heard the counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 whereby the petitioner-defendant's (hereinafter 'defendant') application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement to the suit for eviction filed by the respondent-plaintiff has been dismissed.
(2.) The defendant sought amendment to the written statement stating that subsequent to the filing of the suit for eviction an application had been moved by the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar through its trustee Sh. Bhanwar Giri under Section 23 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1959') for the inclusion of the suit property as a part of the trust property. It was submitted that this subsequent event be allowed to be brought on record in the defendant's written statement as it had a bearing on the defence to the eviction suit. The Trial Court vide its order dated 08.09.2017 has noted that in his written statement the defence of the suit property being the property of the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar (public trust) had already been taken by the defendant and hence the amendment sought was superfluous as also unwarranted and the application appeared to have been filed only with the intent of delaying the trial of the suit. It also held that the amendment sought therefore was not necessary for effectively and completely adjudicating the issues in the suit. Hence the application for amendment of the written statement was dismissed.
(3.) Mr. Pradeep Chaudhary counsel for the defendant submitted that though it was stated in the written statement that the defendant-tenant had landlord tenant relationship not with the plaintiff but with the Atmateshwar Neelkanth Mahadev Trust, Pushkar the application filed by the trust before the Assistant Commissioner, Devasthan under Section 23 of the Act of 1959 specifically claiming the tenanted property to be included as trust property was a subsequent event of relevance to the defendant tenant's defence which required to be brought on record for it would only be subsequent to the amendment to the written statement being allowed and requisite averments brought on record that evidence in regard thereto could be laid in court.;