[2025:RJ-JP:41708] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15669/2025 Netram Son of Buddhiram, aged about 52 Years, Resident of Binega, Tahsil-Hindon, District-Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Narendra Singh Meena Son of Ramkhiladi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Binega, Tahsil-Hindon, District Karauli, Raj. 2. Dan Singh Meena Son Of Ramkhiladi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Biniga, Tahsil-Hindon, District Karauli, Raj. 3. Sub-Registrar Shirmahaveerji, District Karauli. 4. Nayab Tahsildar, Shrimahaveerji, District-Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parveshika Singh on behalf of Mr. V.D. Gathala (AGC) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 13/10/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 20.08.2025, whereby the Additional District Judge, No.2 Hindaun City, District Karauli rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking permission to amend the written-statement. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned court below seriously erred in rejecting the application for amendment in the written-statement without considering the fact that the suit is at the initial stage and from the required amendment, the nature of the defence will not be altered. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made by counsel for both the parties and also perused the record of the case. 4. From bare perusal of the record, it is evident that the present suit for specific performance was filed by the respondents [2025:RJ-JP:41708] (2 of 2) [CW-15669/2025] on 22.06.2021, wherein the defendant No.1-petitioner filed his written-statement on 31.08.2021 and the petitioner has taken a defence that the alleged sale agreement is forged and fabricated. 5. After a lapse of three and a half years, on 20.01.2025, the present petitioner filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written-statement on the ground that the alleged agreement of sale was executed while narrating wrong facts to the petitioner. 6. Further, from the record of the case, it is also evident that initially the petitioner has outrightly rejected the factum of execution of the agreement of sale and took a defence that the agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document. Now, after a delay of three and a half years, the petitioner herein wants to change the original version of the written-statement. Since the amendment sought is virtually changing the main defence pleaded in the written-statement, which cannot be allowed to be incorporated by way of amendment, as the present amendment application is neither bona fide nor in consonance with the earlier written-statement. 7. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity or legal infirmity so as to call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 9. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /18