S.K.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE are two revision petitions by the defendant directed against the order of the Munsif City Jodhpur dated 20 -1 -1978 by which he has ordered that the pleas taken in paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement put in by the defendant in answer to the amended plaint be ignored The question involved in both the revisions is common. I, therefore, propose to decide them by a common judgment.
(2.) I may state the facts leading to S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 1978. The plaintiff non -petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant -petitioner in the court of the Munsif City, Jodhpur, on May 18, 1976 It was stated in para 8 of the plaint that the defendant petitioner had paid rent upto Posh Sudi Poonam, Samvat 2024. The suit was brought for the recovery of the rent and damages for use and occupation in respect of 36 months. It was also stated that if the defendant petitioner wants to take benefit of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (No. XVII of 1950), he should deposit the entire rent. The defendant petitioner contested the suit on various grounds vide written statement submitted on October 7, 1976. Issues were framed by the trial court on March 2, 1977 and the case was posted for evidence on issue No. 1. On May 23, 1977, an application was moved under Order VI, Rule 17, CPC prating (herein that the plaintiff may be permitted to amend the plaint by adding the following to para 8 of the original plaint. - The defendant petitioner contested this application by filing a reply dated September 7, 1977 The trial court vide its order dated September 7, 1977, allowed the amendment. The operative portion of the order dated September 7, 1977 runs as under: September 21, -1977 was fixed for the presentation of the amended plaint by the trial court On September 21,1977 the plaintiff non -petitioner filed the amended plaint and the copy of it was delivered to the defendant's counsel. It was specifically mentioned in the order -sheet dated September 21, 1977: On November 1, 1977, additional written -statement was submitted. An objection was taken before the trial court on 1 -12 -1977 that in the additional written statement which has been submitted in reply to the amended plaint certain additional pleas have been taken which could not be taken. The trial court heard arguments on this objection and passed the order under revision on, January 20, 1978 as aforesaid.
(3.) IN S.B, Civil Revision Petition No. 93 of 1978, the order has also been ma de under the circumstances narrated above.;