Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Jameel Mohd. —Petitioner
versus
Durgesh & Ors. —Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8743 of 2013
Decided on 23.7.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sandeep Shah, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
No application for amendment of written statement can be allowed after trial has commenced.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 6 Rule 17—Amendment of written statement—Rent petition—No application for amendment can be allowed after trial has commenced unless Court comes to conclusion that inspite of due diligence party could not have raised the matter which now sought to raise by way of amendment, before commencement of trial—Presently, trial has already been commenced and witnesses produced on behalf of respondents have already been examined—Respondent has nowhere averred in application that he has failed to raise the matter before commencement of trial which he now wants to raise despite due diligence—In absence of any such averment application preferred by petitioner is liable to be rejected—Trial court has not committed any illegality in rejecting application preferred by petitioner for amendment in written statement—Civil Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 14 to 17)
Result: Civil Writ Petition dismissed.
Vijay Bishnoi, J.— By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.5.2013 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement was rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents No.1 to 9 filed an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2001’) against the petitioner for eviction of the shop in question on the ground of bona fide necessity and default.
3. The written statement/reply to the application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner denied that he is the tenant of the respondents and claimed that his brother Basir is tenant in the shop in question and he is doing his business.
4. The relevant averments from the written statement of the petitioner filed before the Rent Tribunal are reproduced hereinbelow:
(Vernacular matter omitted—Editor)
5. The petitioner has preferred an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for amendment in the written statement while claiming that after his brother left for Kuwait in 1993-94, the petitioner became the tenant of the shop in question and is also paying rent month by month and, therefore, there is relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the respondents.
6. A reply to the said application was preferred on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 9.
7. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court has rejected the said application preferred by the petitioner while observing that the facts which the petitioner wants to incorporate in the written statement will change the nature of the written statement and new situation will arise before the Court which may complicate the matter. It is also observed by learned trial court that three witnesses on behalf of the applicant have been examined and if at this stage any amendment in the written statement is allowed, the matter will revert back to the stage from where it was started. It is further observed that the amendments sought for in the written statement will change the whole situation and will also effect the trial and, therefore, the application preferred by the petitioner for amendment in the written statement is not liable to be accepted.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the learned trial court of rejecting the application for amending the written statement and argued that it is permissible under the law to take inconsistent pleas and the courts should be more liberal in allowing amendment of the written statement.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the learned trial court cannot disallow the amendment in the written statement on the ground that the defendant is altering his defence. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide application for amending the written statement, the petitioner has simply sought to bring into an additional fact on record to the effect that earlier his brother was tenant in the shop in question and when he left for Kuwait, the petitioner became tenant of the respondent. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that by bringing this fact on record, the respondents will not be prejudice and, therefore, the trial court has illegally rejected the application of the petitioner without looking into this aspect of the matter.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(i) Usha Balasaheb Swami & Ors. v. Kiran Appaso Swami & Ors., 2007(3) SCC 602: 2007(3) Supreme 582.
(ii) Baldev Singh & Ors. v. Manohar Singh & Anr. etc., JT 2006(7) 139: 2006(5) Supreme 943: 2006(8) SBR 270.
heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record and the order impugned.
11. In the written statement to the applicati
