Mr. Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 6.1.2016 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment in the written statement has been rejected.

2. The respondent Bhagwan Das filed a suit for partition and mesne profit against the petitioner and several others.

3. The petitioner filed a written statement and inter-alia relied on will dated 24.3.1977 executed by Smt. Puni Devi and in the additional pleas claimed adverse possession. For the plea of adverse possession, a specific averment was made that ever since the death of Smt. Puni Devi on 16.3.1979, there has been litigations between the parties, which clearly indicates that the petitioner is in possession without the consent of the plaintiff and others. Where after, issues were framed and issues pertaining to the will as well as adverse possession were framed by the trial court.

4. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. seeking to place documents pertaining to the litigation between the parties. The application was allowed despite being opposed by the plaintiff by imposing cost of Rs. 1,000/-. As soon as the application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) was allowed, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to amend the written statement so as to incorporate the substance of the documents in the written statement. For the purpose of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. it was stated that the documents were previously not placed on record and the petitioner was not aware of its relevance and after the counsel was made aware of the said documents, the application for bringing the documents on record has been filed and after the application was allowed, the amendment has been sought, which is bona fide.

5. A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff, interalia, opposing the application and questioning the plea of due diligence raised by the petitioner. It is, inter-alia, submitted that the petitioner himself is a counsel and is aware of the legal position and the plea raised is baseless and the requirements of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. are not fulfilled, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the proposed amendment pertains to the evidence related to the documents regarding which the petitioner can always lead evidence and there was no requirement to seek amendment besides the fact that amendment was not bona fide.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner inasmuch as, the amendment sought was not necessary for the purpose of proper disposal of the suit.

8. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) C.P.C. was allowed by the trial court by negating the plea of delay and now the application under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has been rejected on the ground of delay. It was further submitted that unless the petitioner make averments in the written statement pertaining to the documents, which have been taken on record, the petitioner would not be able to lead evidence on the issue and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

9. Reliance was placed on judgment in the case of Navneet Kumar. v. Mahaveer Prasad., 2009(1) DNJ (Raj.) 394.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that the foundational requirement of proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. has not been fulfilled, the plea of the petitioner is already taken in the written statement regarding the litigation and now the amendment in the written statement after the evidence of the plaintiff is already over just for the purpose of elucidating the plea raised cannot be permitted and t