Advocates:
['SHANKER LAL SINWARIA', '', 'NARENDRA SINWARIA', 'GIRDHARI SINWARIA', 'ASHOK PATEL']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JODHPUR

: O R D E R :

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3052/2014

Shanker Lal & Anr.

vs.

Dharmendra Khatri

Date of Order

::

25^th November, 2014

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Mr. Shanker Lal, for the petitioners.

Mr. Manish Patel, for the respondents.

----

BY THE COURT:

This writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners questioning

the validity of order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Rent

Tribunal, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under

Order VI, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written

statement has been rejected.

The respondent landlord filed petition seeking possession

of the premises based on bona fide requirement.

During the course of cross-examination of PW-1 –

Dharmendra Khatri, the fact about his filing income tax returns

was accepted by him; whereafter on an application made by the

petitioners, the income tax returns were produced by said PW-1,

regarding which, he was confronted/cross-examined by the

petitioners.

The application seeking amendment was filed to bring the

said facts, which were disclosed during the course of cross-

examination, on record as part of the written statement; the

2

prayer was resisted by the landlord.

The Tribunal by its impugned order rejected the

application, inter alia, observing as under:-

"अपर क ओर स अपन जवब म यह सशधन चह ह कक व

पर पक क जजरह म नय क छ तथय आय ह$। लककन मर ववनम

मत म ऐस* बत ज कक सकय क ववषय हत* ह, उस अभ/वचन

म जडवन कतई आवशयक नह3 हत ह। पकरण म ववचरण*य

पश यह ह कक आय पर क यचचक म ज आधर बतय ह$ उस

हत वववद8त पररसर क यक;य; एव स8/ववक आवशयकत ह

अरव नह3 और इसक स8/? म अपर क ठस ववरध ह और

इस वववदक ववषयक बबन8 म यह तथय /* समदहत ह कक आय

पर क अनय वकजDपक पररसर उपलबध ह अरव नह3 य उसक

आवशयकत स8/ववक ह य नह3 ? और पसतववत सशधन जवब

यचचक म 8न स /* वववदक ववषय अपन* जगह बन हआ

रहत ह। अपर अपन जवब क मधयम स ऐस तथय अभ/वचनI

म जडवन चहत ह ज एक सकय क ववषय ह जजसक स8/? म

अभ/वचनI म उनक जडवय जन कतई उचचत व आवशयक नह3

ह। अपर चह त यद8 उस इस वववदक बबन8 पर पशतवत

कई सकय पर क आवशयकत क गलत बतन बबत पप हई

त वछछत अनमछत लकर इस बबन8 पर अपन* सकय 8 सकत

ह। लककन मत इस आधर पर कक पर क यचचक पसतछत स

पNव? व उसक लबनकल म उनह अनय पररसर उपलबध र ज

उनक आवशयकत क भलय पय?प ह इस बबत जवब यचचक म

सशधन क अनमछत 8न कतई उचचत व नययसगत नह3 ह

कयIकक यचचक पसतत*करण क व; क आवशयकत महतवपNण?

बबन8 हत ह।"

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that

the amendment sought was essentially for the determination of

issues involved and the Tribunal committed serious error of law

in declining the amendment of the written statement.

Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the

application was filed merely with a view to delay the proceedings

before the Tribunal and the same was rightly rejected by the

Tribunal.

I have considered the rival submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties.

It is a strange situation, wherein, normally the evidence is

led based on the averments made in the pleading, however, in

the present case, the prayer is being made to bring the

3

pleadings in sync with the evidence which has already come on

record; the said attempt on the part of petitioners cannot be

appreciated; the controversy involved in the petition pertains to

the bona fide requirement of the landlord, which has been

denied by the petitioners-tenants and the Tribunal while

rejecting the application rightly observed that the subject matter

of evidence is sought to be included in the evidence, which is not

proper.

An apprehension has been expressed by the counsel for

the petitioners that in absence of specific plea in the written

statement, which has been the subject matter of cross-

examinatio