An application for amendment of a written statement under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC should be decided liberally, and delay is no ground for refusal of such an amendment. However, the amendment should be necessary for the decision of the real controversy between the parties and should be justified. Once the proceedings have commenced, the amendment cannot be allowed under the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC.

1. - By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 24th March, 2006 whereby the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the written statement was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners submits that application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code for amendment in the written statement is to be decided liberally. The amendment in the written statement is for advancement of cause and to bring true facts on record. Learned Court below dismissed the application after discussing the facts on merit, though jurisdiction does not lie to discuss the issue on merit while deciding the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code.

A reference of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andhra Bank v. ABN AMRO Bank N.V. & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 167 has been given.

It is further stated that delay in making application for amendment in written statement is not fatal. The application for amendment cannot be rejected on the aforesaid ground. The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baldev Singh & Ors. etc. v. Manohar Singh & Ors. etc. reported in JT, 2006(45) AIC 82 (SC) : 2006 (64) ALR 895 : 2006 (7) SC 139 has been referred. It is stated that amendment sought in the written statement was to the effect that plaintiff-non-petitioner No.1 has started new business thus very ground to seek eviction no more survives. Another amendment was regarding availability of sufficient place in the same premises thus there exists no bona fide necessity for eviction. Both the amendments were material and should have been allowed. This is moreso when application for amendment in the plaint and written statement cannot be decided with the same yardstick. For amendment in the written statement, the Courts are required to take liberal approach whereas same yardstick may not apply for amendment in the plaint. It is accordingly prayed that impugned order dated 24th March, 2006 may be set aside by allowing the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/s, on the other hand, submits that impugned order was rightly passed by the Court below considering the fact that amendment was sought after initiation of proceedings.

4. Referring to the proviso to Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, it is submitted that after initiation of proceedings, amendment cannot be sought as a matter of right. The Court below has rightly dismissed the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code.

5. It is further stated that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can cause interference in the impugned order only when error apparent on the face of record is shown. No jurisdictional error exist in the impugned order so as to cause interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground also.

6. Coming to the facts of this case, it is stated that amendment in the written statement was to the effect that plaintiff-non-petitioner No.1 started new business. The fact aforesaid was considered by the Court below and finding admission of new business but closure thereof after a year, the Court below came to the conclusion that amendment is not necessary. This is moreso when the fact regarding closure of business was not controverted by the defendant-petitioners.

7. So far as availability of sufficient premises with the plaintiff-non-petitioner is concerned, pleading to that effect exists in the written statement where the defendants have stated that alternative premises are available to the plaintiff. In view of above, the defendants would be at liberty to lead evidence to substantiate the pleadings already taken in the written statement. Further amendment for the aforesaid purpose is not required therefore also there is no illegality in dismissal of the application moved by the petitioners.

8. Learned counsel for the p