S. C. AGRAWAL, J. - (1.) THIS Revision is directed against the orders dated 12th December, 1988 and 17th January, 1989 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar in Civil Suit No. 33 of 1983.
(2.) THE suit above mentioned has been filed by the non-petitioners against the petitioners for eviction from premises used as a factory. In the said suit, as originally filed, eviction was sought on various grounds, including the default in payment of rent. THE petitioner filed his written statement dealing with the said grounds. Subsequently his defence was struck out in so far as default in payment of rent is concerned. THEreafter the non-petitioners amended the plaint so as to abandon other grounds for eviction except the ground of default in payment of rent and thereupon the petitioner submitted an application for amendment in the written statement. THE said application was dis-allowed by the trial court but, on revision, this Court, by order dated 30th August, 1988 allowed the said application for amendment and permitted the petitioner to amend the written statement as per the said application. In accordance with the said directions the petitioner filed an amended written statement on 14th September, 1988. THE non-petitioners submitted an application stating that the amended written statement was not in accordance with the directions given by this Court in its order dated 30th August, 1988. THE said application of the non-petitioners was decided by the Addl. Civil Judge by his order dated 12th December, 1988 whereby it was held that in the amended written statement filed on 14th September, 1988 the petitioner had deleted the contents of para Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the original written statement and has removed the word V in para 9 and has added few lines in para 2 of the additional pleas. THE Addl. Civil Judge found that in the application for amendment dated 10th August, 1988 the petitioner had only sought amendment of the written statement to add paras 8 and 9 in the additional pleas, which was permitted by this court. By order dated 12th December, 1988 the Addl. Civil Judge directed the petitioner to file a fresh amended written statement by removing the portions which had wrongly been included in the amended written statement filed on 14th September, 1988. THEreafter the petitioner submitted an application wherein he submitted that the amended written statement which was filed by him on 14th September, 1988 was in accordance with the directions given by this Court on 30th August, 1988 and he sought a clear and specific order from the court. THE said application was rejected by the Addl. Civil Judge by his order dated 17th January, 1989 whereby he has also ordered that the petitioner would not be permitted to file the amended written statement and the written statement which had been submitted by him before the amendment of the plaint would be treated as the written statement in the case. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders dated 12th December, 1988 and 17th January, 1988 the petitioner has filed this revision. I have heard Shri R. M. Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri R. K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the non-petitioners. I have also perused the application of amendment of written statement dated 10th August, 1988 the order, dated 30th August, 1988 passed by this Court, the original written statement as well as the amended written statement filed by the petitioner on 14th September, 1988. It appears that in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the original written statement the petitioner had dealt with the averments contained in the plaint relating to the grounds of eviction other than the ground of default in payment of rent and in view of the fact that the non-petitioners have abandoned the said grounds, the petitioner, in the amended written statement dated 14th September, 1988 has deleted the said averments in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the original written statement and stated that these paras need no answer in view of the fact that the non-petitioners are not relying upon these grounds. In my view the said change made in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the amended written statement is of consequential nature only in view of the fact that the plaintiffs have abandoned the grounds of eviction pleaded in paras 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the plaint. The other objection with \ regard to deletion of the word 'n' in paras 9 of the amended written statement also appears to be inconsequential because no issue arises out of the said para. Shri Lodha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, stated that he would change para of the amended written statement so as to tally with para 9 of the original written statement. As regards para 2 of the additional pleas Shri Lodha states that the additional lines have been inserted in the amended written statement with a view to reiterate what is mentioned in paras 8 and 9 Of the additional pleas, which have been permitted to be added under order dated 30th August, 1980. Shri Lodha undertakes to delete these lines and retain para 2 of the additional pleas in the same lines as in the original written statement. In the circumstances, the revision is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner will file an amended written statement restoring para 9 and para 2 of the additional pleas in the same form as they are contained in the original written statement. Rest of the contents of amended written statement dated 14th September, 1988 may be retained. The amended written statement incorporating these changes should be submitted by 5th May, 1989. No order as to costs. . ;