RAM PRASAD Vs. GULJARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the trial court on an application filed by the defendant -petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, for seeking amendment in his written statement, which was rejected by the trial court on May 2, 1986.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this petition are that the plaintiff -non -petitioner filed a suit against the defendant -petitioner for recovery of rent and ejectment from the rented shop on the ground of personal necessity. It is alleged that during the pendency of the suit, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner -defendant that the landlord -plaintiff was having one shop in Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli duly allotted to him and the non -petitioner -plaintiff has already started carrying on his business in it, and that, the [plaintiff -land lord was also having shop in Katla, Kotputli in his possession which is lying vacant. As such, the petitioner -defendant moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, seeking amendment in the written statement and narrated the aforesaid facts. The point of comparative hardship was also mentioned. It was prayed in the said application that in the interest of justice and in order to decide the real controversy between the parties, the defendant -petitioner should be allowed to amend his written statement. The said application seeking amendment in the written statement was dismissed by the trial court vide an order under challenge in this revision petition simply on the ground that after the rejection of the defendant's application dated 10 -1 -1986 on 22 -1 -1986, it (trial court) does not find any reason to allow second application filed on 25 -2 -1986. It was further observed by the trial court that it has not specifically been mentioned in the application that from whom the plaintiff -non -petitioner received the possession of the shop situated in Katla Kotputli and as to when in the shop situated at Krishi Grain Mandi, Kotputli non -petitioner commenced carrying on his business, and the defendant -petitioner failed to point out fresh facts.

(3.) SHRI Rajendra Soni, the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner plaintiff, submitted that the application for amendment has been rightly dismissed by the learned trial court.