S.K. MAL LODHA, J. — These are two revision petitions by the defendant directed against the order of Munsif City Jodhpur dated January 20, 1978 by which he has ordered that the pleas taken in paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement put in by the defendant in answer to the amended plaint be ignored. The question involved in both the revisions is common. I, therefore, propose to decide them by a common judgment.

2. I may state the facts leading to S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 92 of 1978. The plaintiff non-petitioner instituted a suit for arrears of rent and ejectment against the defendant -petitioner in the court of Munsif City, Jodhpur on May 18,1976. It: has stated in para 8 of the plaint that the defendant petitioner had paid rent up to Posh Sudi Poonam, Samvat 2024. The suit was brought for the recovery of the rent and damages for use and occupation in respect of 36 months. It was also stated that if the defendant petitioner wants to take benefit of the provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, (No. XVII oil 950), he should deposit the entire rent. The defendant petitioner contested the suit on various grounds vide written statement submitted on October 7, 1976. Issues were framed by the trial court on March 2. 1977 and the case was posted for evidence on issue No 1. On May 23, 1977, an application was moved under O. VI r. 17, C. P. C. praying therein that the plaintiff may be permitted to amend the plaint by adding the following to para 8 of the original plaint,—

^^izfroknh us laor~ 2024 ds ek/k onh ,de ds ckn tks fdjk;k M~;w gqvk og oknh dks vFkok oknh dqnjrh ds firk Jh gfjfdku mQZ gfjflag dks u rks f/kek u VsUMj fd;k o bl izdkj N% ekg ls vf/kd le; dk fdjk;k vnk djus ls fMQkYVj gSA**

3. The defendant petitioner contested this application by filing a reply dated September 7, 1977. The trial court vide its order dated September 7, 1977, allowed the amendment. The operative portion of the order dated September 7, 1977 runs as under: —

^^vr% vknsk gS fd oknh dk izkFkZuk i= 15&@ gtZ ij Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkZuk i= lakks/ku dh vuqefr nh tkrh gSA gqDe lquk;kA**

September 21, 1977 was fixed for the presentation of the amended plaint by the trial court. On September 21, 1977 the plaintiff non petitioner filed the amended plaint and the copy of it was delivered to the defendants counsel. It was specifically mentioned in the order-sheet dated September 21, 1977,—

^^odqyk; gkftjA

odhy oknh us lakksf/kr okn isk fd;k udy odhy izfroknh dks nh xbZA i=koyh okLrs tokcnkok lakksf/kr okn dk fnukad 17-10-77 dks isk gksA

On November 1, 1977, additional written-statement was submitted. An objection was taken before the trial court on December 1, 1977 that in the additional written statement which has been submitted in reply to the amended plaint, certain additional pleas have been taken which could not be taken. The trial court heard arguments on this objection and passed the order under revision on January 20, 1978 as aforesaid

4. In S. B. Civil Revision Petition No. 93 of 1978, the order has also been made under the circumstances narrated above.

5. Aggrieved by the orders dated January 20, 1978, the defendant-peti-tioner has come up in revision before me.

6. I have heard Mr. A.L. Chopra learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Mr. G.R. Singhvi learned counsel for plaintiff non petitioner and also perused the record of the case.

7. The first contention raised by Mr. Chopra is that when the plaint has been amended in pursuance of the order of the trial court, the defendant has an unqualified right to file fresh written-statement untrammelled by the pleas which he has taken in the earlier written-statement. The whole of the written-statement should be allowed to be taken on record and the learned Munsif has exercised his jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in directing that paras Nos. 2 and 3 of the additional written statement should be ignored. It was further submitted that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document