TIWARI, Member.—This is a revision under section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short 'the Act') against the impugned order dated 28.01.2003 of Sub-Divisional Officer Bayana by which he rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C.

2. The facts, in brief, are that during pendency of a revenue suit under section 88, 188 and 53 of the Act between the rival parties, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. for making amendment in written statement. This application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that it was put up very late after under delay. Aggrievecd against the impugned order dated 28.01.2003 this revision is filed.

3. I have heard both the learned counsels.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner-defendant has requested for making amendment in para 3, 4 and 5 of his written statement whereby the wants to gives specific reason insted of simple denial. Proposed amendment does not change the nature of suit. Sub-Divisional Officer has illegally rejected the application on the ground that is was put up after considerable delay. As such the application should be decided on merit rather than on a simple question of delay which can be compensated through cost. The order of Sub-Divisional Officer is non-speaking; as such it should be quashed and amendment should be allowed.

5. Countering the argument of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 contended that there has been mutual 'Rajinama' has not been signed by the petitioner. Now earlier written statement is sought to be amended. This request was rightly not allowed by the trial court. As such the order of trial court should not be interfered with.

6. I have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, perused the impugned order and gone through through the record available on the file.

7. The only ground on which the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. has been rejected by the trial court is that it was put up after considerable delay. It is stated that written statement was filed 12 years after the institution of the suit; and one year after filing of the written statement amendment is sought under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. So on this simple point of delay the application was rejected by the trial court. This simplistic logic of rejection is untenable. If nature of the suit does not alter by amendment and it is expedient in reaching right conclusion an application under O. 6 R. 17 of the C.P.C. for amendment of pleadings should ordinarily by allowed in the interest of justice, provided trial has not commenced. It is clear from perusal of the file that in this case no evidence has been adduced by either parties so far. Amendment sought by the petitioner is not of such kind that it changes the nature of the suit. However, any hardship caused due to delay in proposed amendment in the pleading can be mitigated by awarding suitable cost.

8. In light of above discussion, it is apparent that trial court has acted illegally and committed material irregularity in rejecting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. As such the revision succeeds.

9. Resultantly, the revision is allowed; the impugned order dated 28-1-2003 of Sub-Divisional Officer Bayana is set aside and the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the C.P.C. is allowed at the cost of Rs. 1000/-.

Pronounced.