NATHAR MAL Vs. ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE NO 1

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been submitted against the order dated 01.12.2005 passed by the Addl. District Judge No.1 Bhilwara rejecting an application submitted by the petitionersappellants- defendants seeking amendment in the written statement at the appellate stage.

(2.) The petitioners, appellants against a decree for ejectment, sought amendment in the written statement with the submissions that the present plaintiff and his sister have filed a separate suit for division of property wherein the plaintiff's share in the property is stated at 9/42; and with such minimal share in the property, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from the suit premises on the ground of his reasonable and bona fide necessity; and cannot establish business in the suit premises without consent of other co-sharers. Yet another ground was sought to be inserted in the written statement that the plaintiff has got possession of another shop and, therefore, his professed need has come to an end.

(3.) The learned appellate court has rejected the application for amendment by the impugned order dated 01.12.2005 (Annex.7) on the consideration that a co-owner landlord could maintain a suit for eviction and other co-owners are not required to be impleaded parties while relying on a decision of this Court in Arun Kumar Vs. Surajmal Rawat : CDR 2005 (2) Rajasthan 1199. Regarding the averments sought to be taken about another shop, the appellate court found that such aspect of the matter has already come on record in evidence before the learned trial court and, therefore, there was no necessity for permitting any amendment and such fact cannot be said to be a 'subsequent event' so as to permit amendment in the written statement.