HARISHANKAR KHANDELWAL Vs. RAMESH RAWAT AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the interlocutory order dated 12/1/2015 by which two applications dated 21.11.2014 and the other dated 3.12.2014 both under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC by the defendant to carry out amendment in his written statement, have been rejected.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

(3.) IN the above said factual background based upon the statement of said witness the tenant defendant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in his written statement to incorporate pleadings to the extent that the said statement of witness demonstrates that the son of the plaintiff landlord is employed and, therefore, the need shown by the landlord for seeking eviction of the shop does not exist. As regards the application dated 21.11.2014 also filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC is concerned this court feels that the reason assigned by the trial court in rejecting the application cannot be termed to be rendered in transgression of jurisdictional purviews of the trial court. The trial court has rightly held in respect of application dated 21.11.2014 that the subject matter of the amendment sought to be brought forth does not relate to pleadings but to evidence. Thus the impugned order so far as it rejects the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dated 21.11.2014 is upheld.