JUDGMENT 1. - This civil revision petition arises out of an order dated 9.3.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (JD) Kota (North) Kota in Civil Suit No. 268/98, whereby he rejected petitioner's (defendant's) application u/O.6 R. 17 CPC filed on 14.12.1999 and 22.12.1999, observing inter alia that the grounds on which petitioner sought amendment in the written statement relating to the subsequent events as regards which he has already advanced his contention by way of making specific averments in his written statement, i.e. in respect of the requirement of the plaintiff to keep suit premises for bona fide need for his son. The trial Court in its wisdom after distinguishing ratio of the decisions in the matters reported in (i) AIR 1974 SC 1178 , (ii) 1999 DNJ (Raj.) 108, (iii) AIR (CJ) Delhi 1985(1) p. 567 and (iv) AIR 1975 Raj. 36, which have been relied upon by the petitioner, has arrived at the conclusion that the decisions cited on behalf of the petitioners are not attracted to the present case, to which I am in full agreement. 2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully examined the impugned order, prima facie, I am of the opinion that the grounds on which the defendant had sought amendment pertained to those subsequent events, which are neither relevant nor germane to decide the controversy between the parties and details thereto have already been specifically averred on the written statement filed to the amended suit. Hence, no purpose would be served by permitting such amendment in question, inasmuch as with regard to the said averments issue No. 8 has been framed, which would cover subject-matter in controversy by way of allowing the parties to lead their respective evidence. Consequently; I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.Revision dismissed. *******