The court has the discretion to allow or disallow amendments to pleadings, and it may refuse to allow amendments that are mala fide or intended to delay the proceedings.

V.S.Aggarwal, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by N.K. Vij petitioner directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, dated 14.11.1996. By virtue of the impugned order, the learned trial Court had allowed the application filed by the respondent seeking amendment of the written statement.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner has filed an ejectment petition against the respondent alleging that he has not paid the arrears of rent from the period 6.5.1982 onwards. The rent is stated to be Rs. 13,000/- per month. Reply was filed. It has further been pointed out that earlier an ejectment petition had been filed which was allowed and the petitioner had obtained the possession. After having been evicted, the respondent filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") for amendment of the written statement asserting that the petitioner has executed an agreement with the respondent on 25.4.1990 at Amritsar. As per agreement, the petitioner had received from the respondent jewellery worth Rs. 10 lacs and had agreed to withdraw the petition for eviction.

3. The petition as such was contested pointing out that the respondent has already made a statement in this Court that he has vacated the premises. It was further alleged that no such agreement had been executed on 25.4.1990. The agreement was described to be forged and fabricated document.

4. The learned trial Court allowed the amendment application holding that the respondent by virtue of the amendment only seeks to incorporate certain subsequent events which took place during the pendency of the petition. No definite conclusion about the genuineness or legality of the document should be expressed. With this reasoning, the amendment was allowed.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, present revision petition has been filed.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been urged that in the earlier eviction proceedings in this Court the respondent had already made a statement that possession has been delivered. At that time it was never brought to the notice of the Court that there was any such agreement dated 25.4.1990. No such agreement had ever been executed and the respondent was only trying to delay the proceedings by introducing false documents. On the contrary, respondents learned counsel urged that the fact as to whether the document is genuine or false has yet to be adjudicated. The respondent should not be debarred to take the pleas which was available in law. Otherwise also, it was urged that though in earlier proceedings between the parties such an amendment had been disallowed but that order passed at the motion stage should not bind the parties.

7. Taking up the contention of the learned counsel as to the effect of the earlier order passed between the parties, it needs only to be mentioned that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for recovery of certain sums. The said civil suit was being contested. During the pendency of the civil suit, the respondent had filed an application for amendment of the written statement. The learned Additional Civil Judge had declined the amendment. In the Civil Revision Petition No. 1250 of 1996 titled Kamal Kapoor v. N.K. Vij, filed by the respondent and decided on 27.11.1996, this Court held as under:-

"These facts clearly demonstrate that the sole attempt of the petitioner is to drag the respondent on one pretext or the other. Present suits for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,29,605/- (in C.R. No. 1250 of 1996) and Rs. 83,320/- (in C.R. No. 1255 of 1996) are pending since November, 1986 and March, 1983 respectively. Otherwise too, in view of very strained relations between the parties i.e. eviction order against the petitioner clearly brings out the precise purpose for which this plea is now being set up. The trial Court while declining the application also noticed that even the original agreement intended to be set up has not seen