ORDER :

Petitioner being the defendant in an eviction suit in O.S.No. 352/2019 is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the order dated 31.03.2021 a copy whereof is at Annexure-A whereby, her application in IA No.7 filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 having been rejected, the learned II Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mysuru, has denied leave to amend the Written Statement, the said amendment having the effect of withdrawing the admissions made in the pleadings.

2. The respondent-plaintiff having entered Caveat through his counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been predicated; he resists the petition on the ground that sanctioning amendment would amount to permitting petitioner to withdraw the admissions in her pleadings; the amendment sought is highly belated and lacks bona fide; the subject application is hit by the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code; the amendment would change structure of the defence in the suit to the prejudice of the plaintiff; even otherwise, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles her to the grant of leave for amending the Written Statement; so contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines to grant indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a) As to Amendment Application hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17:

Suit of the respondent is for eviction; Written Statement has been filed way back in the year 2019; in fact, the Written Statement was belatedly filed and the court below graciously accepted the same on record; admittedly, issues having been framed, the trial is half a through; at this stage, petitioner has come up with the present application filed in March 2021; the affidavit supporting the application does not offer a plausible explanation for the delay brooked in moving it, as rightly opined by learned trial Judge; the reliance of learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Apex Court in Usha Balashaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami, (2007) 5 SCC 602, does not much come to his assistance; at para 17 of the said decision, the Apex Court has observed that the proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of the Code would not be applicable if the trial of the suit has not commenced; thus, the petitioner’s application militates against the bar enacted by the Parliament in the Proviso.

(b) As to withdrawal of admissions in the pleadings:

Battle lines of the legal proceedings were drawn up when the petitioner filed her Written Statement on 22.12.2019 resisting the suit; with that she went to the trial; at para no.6 of the Written Statement, petitioner has admitted the monthly tenancy; she states “…the agreed rate of rent of the schedule premise was Rs.22,500/-per month…there was an agreement to pay enhanced rent at the rate of 47,500/-per month…” ; at para no. 8 of the Written Statement, she contends that there is no proper termination of the tenancy and that, the notice of termination of tenancy is defective; at para no.7, she has denied being in arrears of rent; that being the position, at this belated stage, she wants to amend the Written Statement to take up a new contention of five year oral lease for a total consideration of Rs. 9,00,000/-that too on the basis of the alleged oral agreement dated 24.07.2017; if the leave is granted for the amendment, it virtually amounts to withdrawing the admission made by the petitioner in her Written Statement; this runs counter to a long line decisions of the Apex Court to the effect that admissions made in the pleadings being sacrosanct, cannot be readily permitted to be withdrawn at a belated stage; if withdrawal is permitted, that would prejudice the interest of the respondent-plaintiff and therefore, it cannot be sanctioned; the version of the petitioner in the affidavit supporting the application does not justify carving out