Rajasthan High Court - JodhpurAngad Kumar vs Civil Judge (J.D.),Suratgarh & Ors on 22 May, 2009Author:H.R. PanwarBench:H.R. Panwar1
                                                SBCWP No.749/2007

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                          AT JODHPUR.


                            ORDER

         S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.749/2007

                          Angad Kumar
                               Vs.
         Civil Judge (Junior Division), Suratgarh & Ors.


              Date of Order      ::      22/05/2009

                            PRESENT

            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR



Mr.Kailash Khatri, for the petitioner.
Mr.Trilok Joshi, for the respondent No.2
Ms.Aruna Negi for Mr.P.R.Mehta, for the respondents No.3 & 4.



BY THE COURT:By an application being IA No.4835/2009 filed by

the respondent No.2, the respondent seeks early hearing of

the writ petition. The application is not opposed by the counsel

appearing for the writ petitioner. The application is, therefore,

allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties,

the matter is finally heard at this stage.By the instant writ petition underArticle 227of the2SBCWP No.749/2007Constitution of India, the order Annexure-4 dated 18th January,

2007 passed by the respondent No.1-Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Suratgarh (for short "the trial court" hereinafter) has

been challenged.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

            It appears that a suit was filed by the respondent

No.2 against the petitioner and some of the respondents for

declaration before the trial court. The petitioner-defendant

filed written statement. However, subsequently, the petitioner-

defendant filed an application underOrder 6 Rule 17 CPCon

31st July, 2006 requesting the trial court to permit the

petitioner to amend the written statement by incorporating

certain essential facts which came to the knowledge of the

petitioner-defendant after filing of the written statement.I have carefully gone through the application filed

by the defendant-petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.The facts sought to be incorporated in the written

statement by way of amended written statement is essential

for just decision of the case. According to the petitioner-

defendant, such facts were not within his knowledge at the

time of filing of the written statement. In my view, the trial

court fell in error in dismissing the application filed by the3SBCWP No.749/2007petitioner-defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C.Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The

     order impugned Annexure-4 dated 18th January, 2007 is set

     aside and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant

     underOrder 6 Rule l7 C.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner to file

     the amended written statement on or before 29th May, 2009.

     Stay petition stands disposed of.(H.R. PANWAR), J.NK