INDER SEN ISRANI, J.—-This is a revision petition against the order dated 9.1.1987 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of written statement.

2. The non-petitioner has filed a civil suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for the suit premises described in para 2 of the plaint. These allegations have been denied by the defendant-petitioner. The petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. dated 5. 1. 1985, which was opposed by the non-petitioner and was dismissed as stated above.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and also perused the order of the lower court as also the proposed amendment, which is reproduced in para 4 of the petition.

4. Mr. N. M. Ranjjan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that it has been proposed in the amendment that a hall measuring 100 east-west and 40 north-south is lying vacant with the non-petitioner, in which large crowd can sit and listen to devotional songs etc. and Rishi Munies can also rest there. Therefore, since the non-petitioner required this much hall, for which this suit has been filed, which is lying vacant on the ground floor will fulfil all his bonafide needs. The contention of the learned counsel is that this is a subsequent event and therefore, soon these facts cane to his knowledge," an application for amendment was filed. It has been further pointed out that the learned trial court has misconceived the scope of Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. in as much as it has observed that the contention of the petitioner in the amendment application do not seem to be correct in view of the map of the whole building already on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be allowed.

5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner Shri Kasliwal has on the other hand pointed out that the suit was filed as early as 1977 and the evidence of defendant was closed on 11.2.1985. Since then the defendant has been trying to prolong the proceedings by filing applications one or the other and has been successful till today. Learned counsel pointed out the proceedings of all dates from 11.2.1985 till today to how the petitioner has been taking adjournments on one court or the other with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. It is also pointed out that the application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. was also filed earlier on 9. 7. 85 which was rejected by the trial court on 12.9.1985. It is also pointed out that earlier also the revision Petition No. 161/85 was filed in this court by the defendant when his evidence was closed on 11.2.1985 by the trial court. In the order dated 25. 2. 1985 made in the above mentioned revision petition, it was pointed out that the defendant was directed to produce his evidence since 1980 and this court found no reason to interfere in the order of the trial court dated 11.2. 1985, by which the evidence of the defendant petitioner was closed. The revision petition was therefore, dismissed. It is further pointed out that the proposed amendment itself shows that there is no subsequent event, which may have come to the knowledge of the petitioner. It is clearly mentioned in the proposed amendment that a hall is already lying vacant and it is not said that it has now become vacant. Apart from that, the petitioner is a tenant in the same premises and passes by the side of the hall every day, which is only 6|$ in height and has several large pillars in between and the measurement of which is much less as is evident from the map of the building already on record, which shows that the defendant was already having full knowledge of the whole building including the hall pointed out in the application. This hall is used more or less as a godown and cannot be used for any other purpose.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document