PREM CHAND Vs. TLIAKURJI ADINATHJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order dated 9. 1. 1987 passed by the learned Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Jaipur City, whereby he dismissed the application of the petitioner filed under Order 6 Rule 17 for amendment of written statement.

(2.) THE non-petitioner has filed a civil suit for eviction against the petitioner on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity for the suit premises described in para 2 of the plaint. THEse allegations have been denied by the defendant-petitioner. THE petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C. P. C. dated 5. 1. 1985, which was opposed by the non-petitioner and was dismissed as stated above.

(3.) THE map of the whole building has already been filed by the plaintiff which is on record and the defendant-petitioner is also a tenant in the same building. THErefore, the question of any subsequent knowledge to him, on accuont of which this application for amendment is filed, does notarise. Learned trial court has only pointed out that keeping in view the measurement given of the hall in the map already on record, shows that its size is much less that what is mentioned in the proposed amendment. By this, the trial court has not come to any conclusion whether the proposed amendment may be rejected as being untrue. THE court is not supposed to keep its eyes shut even to on the record already on file when an application is to be decided. THE case is at the stage of final arguments and the trial court after considering all aspects of the matter has exercised the jurisdiction vested in it and has rejected the application. I do not find that the trial court has committed any material irregularity or illegality on account of which any interference may be made in the impugned order. THE power to grant amendment of the pleadings is intended to serve the ends of justice and this power is not unfathered and dees not mean that any application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 has necessarily to be allowed.