Honble YADAV, J. – This is plaintiffs second appeal arises out of the suit for ejectment from the shop in question against the defendant-respondents alleging that the original tenant (deceased Rampratap) had parted with possession of the shop in question with them and as such their possession is unauthorised and they are liable to be ejected under the Raja- sthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as `Act No. 17 of 1950).

(2). The defendant-respondents filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and pleaded that they are heirs of deceased Rampratap and Smt. Suraj Devi is not his legally wedded wife. It is alleged that they were living with the deceased original tenant Rampratap during his life time and carrying on business with him in the suit shop. With these pleadings the allegation of sub-letting was denied and they claimed themselves to be tenant of the disputed shop being heirs of deceased Rampratap. Respondent No. 1 claims himself to be nephew of deceased while respondent No. 2 claims himself to be brother.

(3). It is pertinent to mention that in paras 10 and 11 of their written statement the defendant respondents alleged that the original landlord Jaikumar entered into an agreement to sell the entire disputed premises including the shop in question to the original tenant Rampratap for Rs. 15,000/- and received Rs. 2,000/- as earnest amount from him on 20.12.83 but subsequently sold the premises to plaintiff appellant on 10.2.84 against which they have filed civil suit in the court of District Judge, Bikaner for cancellation of sale-deed and for specific performance of contract.

(4). The learned trial court after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and after looking into the relevant provisions of Act No. 17 of 1950 decreed the suit for ejectment against the defendant respondents.

(5) Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court the defendant respondents preferred an appeal before the learned lower appellate court. The learned lower appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and allowed the appeal filed by the defendant-respondents.

(6). Aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower appellate court the plaintiff-appellant has filed the instant second appeal before this Court.

(7). After service of notices upon the defendant-respondents they have filed a cross objection under 0.41 CPC. The defendant respondents have also moved an application under 0.6 r.17 CPC for amending their entire written statement filed before the learned trial court.

(8). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the judgments passed by both the courts below together with the records of the courts below.

(9). Before dwelling upon the substantial question of law formulated in the present second appeal as well as cross objection, I consider it just and proper to dispose of the amendment application of the defendant-respondents seeking amendment in their written statement.

(10). In my opinion, in the garb of present amendment application the defendant-respondents want to change their entire written statement. This application appears to be a desperate attempt of the defendant-respondents to stall the disposal of the suit expeditiously. By moving present amendment application the defendant-respondents intend to raise new pleas which had already been raised by them in original civil suit No. 54/84 before learned District Judge, Bikaner. The judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Bikaner on 26.9.89 has already attained finality between the parties, therefore, the present amendment application is devoid of merit. In my considered opinion the present amendment application is an after thought and it has been moved to delay the disposal of the case between the parties, therefore, it deserves to be rejected and as such it is her

Click Here to Read the rest of this document