JUDGMENT
Inder Sen Israni, J.
1. This is a revision petition against the order dated 9-1-1987 passed by the learned Munsif 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, Cr. P.C. dated 5-1-1985, which was opposed by the non-petitioner and was dismissed as stated above.
3. I have heard learned Counsel for both the parties and also perused the order of the lower court as also the proposed amendment, which is reproduced in para 4 of the petition.
4. Mr. N.M. Ranjan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that it has been proposed in the amendment that a ball measuring 100 east-west and 40 north-south is lying vacant with the non-petitioner, in which large crowd can sit and listen to devotional songs etc. and Rishi Munies can also rest there. Therefore, since the non-petitioner required this much hall, for which this suit has been filed, which is lying vacant on the ground floor will fulfil all his bonafide needs. The contention of the learned Counsel is that this is a subsequent event and therefore, soon these facts came to his knowledge, an application for amendment was filed. It has been further pointed out that the learned trial court has misconceived the scope of Order 6, Rule 17, CPC in as much as it has observed that the contentions of the petitioner in the amendment application do not seem to be correct in view of the map of the whole building already on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the application deserves to be allowed.
5. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner Shri Kasliwal has on the other hand pointed out that the suit was filed as early as 1977 and the evidence of defendant was closed on 11-2-1985. Since then the defendant has been trying to prolong the proceedings by filing applications one or the other and has been successful till today. Learned Counsel pointed out the proceedings of all dates from 11-2-1985 till today to show as to how the petitioner has been taking adjournments on one count or the other with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. It is also pointed out that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was also filed earlier on 9-7-1985 which was rejected by the trial court on 12-9 1985. It is also pointed out that earlier also the Revision Petition No. 161/85 was filed in this court by the defendant when his evidence was closed on 11-2-1985 by the trial court In the order dated 25-2-1985 made in the above mentioned revision petition, it was pointed out that the defendant was directed to produce his evidence since 1980 and this court found no reason to interfere in the order of the trial court dated 11-2-1985 by which the evidence of the defendant petitioner was closed. The revision petition was therefore, dismissed. It is further pointed out that the proposed amendment itself shows that there is no subsequent event, which may have come to the knowledge of the petitioner. It is clearly mentioned in the proposed amendment that a hall is already lying vacant and it is not said that it has now become vacant. Apart from that, the petitioner is a tenant in the same premises and passes by the side of the hall every day, which is only 6-1/2, in height and has several large pillars in between and the measurement of which is much less as is evident from the map of the building already on record, which shows that the defendant was already having full knowledge of the whole building including the hall pointed out in the application. This ball is used more or less as a godown and cannot be used for any other purpose.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the case of Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supplier in which it was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that the application for amendment should not be refused on technical ground like mis-description which was on account of bonafide mistake, In the case of Goverdhan Bang v. Union of India AIR 1953 Hyderabad 212 it was pointed out that the amendment should be refused when an application is not in good faith. It has also been held that the High Court cannot interfere under Section 115 CPC when the lower court having jurisdiction, has arrived at a wrong decision on a question of fact or even on question of law. In the case of Firm Janki Das Ram Lal v. Shri Mohan Das 1986 WLN (UC) 541 it was held that the court is only required to see as to whether the amendment sought to be made is absolutely frivolous or raises a plausible plea, which can be raised by a party to the suit. These rulings evidently are of no help to the petitioner.
7. 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 account of which this application for amendment is filed, does not arise. 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 than 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 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 unfettered and does not mean that any application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 has necessarily to be allowed.
8. In the result, I find no force in this revision petition, which is hereby dismissed with costs.
