AJANTA ENTERPRISES Vs. BIMLA CHARAN CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the defendant petitioner against two orders of the Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur, dated 6th and 7th February, 1987, by which he has allowed the plaintiff petitioner to file a rejoinder to the written -statement filed by the petitioner. The second order of 7th February, 1987, is an order by which time has not been granted to the petitioner to file revision, which cannot be said to be of any importance in the face of the first order which has to be examined in this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the petitioner is a tenant of non -petitioner No. 1 against whom a suit was instituted on the ground of personal necessity. This suit was decreed by the trial court and the petitioner filed an appeal which is pending before the Additional District Judge No. 4. During the course of pendency of this appeal, he moved an application for the amendment of his written -statement. In order to introduce the facts that the plaintiff -non -petitioner had obtained a decree for eviction against the another tenant one Manmohan Corporation and after executing the same had constructed four show -rooms in that plot, out of which he retained one for himself and let -out three on rent to different persons. This amendment application was allowed by the Additional District Judge hearing the appeal by order dated 28 7 -1986 but at the time a condition was imposed that he would not be given any opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the amendment. The petitioner preferred a revision before this Court, which was decided on 31 -10 -86 and in the interests of justice it was ordered that when the amendment had been allowed then it was necessary that the party should be allowed to adduce evidence also. It was also observed that the plaintiff -non -petitioner, if he desires, may file a rejoinder to the amended statement and then if necessary fresh issues be framed and then the matter may decided be after evidence. It was also directed that the appeal should be disposed within a period of four months.

(3.) THE question to be decided is whether it is open to a plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the whole of the amended written -statement of the defendant after it has been amended or only to that part which has been amended.