GOVIND KUMAR SONI Vs. ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The tenant/petitioner/defendant has preferred this writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 30th September, 2009 passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby his application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. for amendment in the written statement has been dismissed during the pendency of his appeal.

(3.) That plaintiff-respondent No. 2 filed a suit for eviction against defendant-petitioner in respect of rented premises for necessity of his son Sanjay, which was decreed by the trial court. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first appellate court. During the pendency of that appeal, the petitioner moved an application for amendment in the written statement contending therein that one another suit was filed by plaintiff against another tenant Ghanshyam Das Maheshwari for necessity of another premises for his another son Raj Kumar, which was decreed and thereafter the first appeal and the second appeal filed by the tenants have been dismissed and possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the necessity of the present rented premises is no more. Therefore, this fact may be inserted in the written statement by way of amendment in the written statement. The trial court rejected the said application vide impugned order dated 30th September, 2009, which is under challenge in this writ petition.