The court may reject applications for amendment if they lack supporting evidence, and may consider repeated applications for amendment and additional evidence as delaying tactics.

1. This revision petition has been directed against the order dated 26.7.2000 passed by Additional District Judge No. 4, Jaipur in 1st Appeal No. 27 of 1998, whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code filed by defendant-petitioner has been rejected.

2. The respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for ejectment on the ground of reasonable bona fide necessity. The suit was decreed and against the judgment and decree of trial Court, regular 1st appeal was preferred, which is pending before the first appellate Court. During pendency of appeal when the case was fixed for final arguments, the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code was moved by defendant-petitioner for amendment of the written statement. The application has been dismissed by the order impugned.

3. The amendment being sought was that the accommodation has been made available to plaintiff for doing the business, which is based on certain record i.e., telephone bill in the name of plaintiff. The application was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the order. The Court had observed that no such document has been placed on record to show that plaintiff had acquired any shop so as to warrant amendment. In my opinion the appellate court had rightly rejected the application for amendment in written statement at the stage of appeal.

4. In the alternate, counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, wherein it was held that subsequent events can be taken into consideration if same have material bearing on relief. If the Court finds that having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is necessary to record oral evidence tested by oral cross examination, it may have recourse to that procedure. The Court may also treat any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings itself as one under the said provision and call upon the opposite side to traverse it.

5. Per contra, counsel for plaintiff respondent states that the suit was filed in month of May, 1985 on the ground of default of payment of rent, bona fide necessity and non-user, which was decided on 7.4.1998. The appeal was preferred by the petitioner and right from July, 1998 the time was being sought for arguments and even last opportunity had been granted on 5.11.1998 and even the appeal was dismissed in default on 6.4.1999. After restoration of the appeal, the petitioner moved the application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, which was rejected in October, 1999. The petitioner again sought time for arguments in appeal, but instead of addressing the arguments, the petitioner moved the application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code on 16.12.1999 which has rejected on 4.4.2000. The petitioner has again moved another application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code on 1.5.2000, which came to be rejected on 3.5.2000 and last chance was granted to argue the appeal. The petitioner again moved the third application under Order 6, Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code on 17.7.2000, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 26.7.2000 with the cost of Rs. 500/-.

6. It is the contention of counsel for respondent that the petitioner defendant is interested in getting the appeal delayed. The petitioner is not interested in getting the appeal concluded. The petitioner had moved the application for amendment as many as 3 or 4 times and he has also moved the application for additional evidence. As such it cannot be said that the petitioner is not interested in delaying the matter.

7. After hearing counsel for petitioner and going through the impugned order, in my opinion the trial Court had rightly dismissed the application. I do not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court. I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merits and the same is to be dismissed with heavy cost. The cost is assessed as Rs. 3, 000/-.

8. With the above observations, the revision petition is dismissed with cost.P