JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners-defendants against the respondents on 15.1.2004 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 24.11.2003 (Annex. 4) passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City, by which the application (Annex. 3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with sections 151 and 153 CPC filed by the petitioners-defendants was rejected, be quashed and set aside. 2. It may be stated here that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit against the present petitioners-defendants in the year 1994 for recovery of arrears of rent and restoration of possession of the suit premises and a copy of the plaint is marked as Annex. 1. A written statement was filed by the present petitioners-defendants and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 2. Thereafter, issues were framed and evidence was recorded and the case was running for final arguments since 28.1.1999. 3. Thereafter, in the year 2004, an application (Annex. 3) under Order 6 Rule 17 read with sections 151 and 153 CPC was filed by the petitioners defendants in the above suit with the prayer that after para 12 of the written statement (Annex.2), they may be allowed to add one more pare to the effect that the suit, as it was filed, was not maintainable legally and therefore, suit be dismissed on this ground alone. 4. The respondents-plaintiffs did not file any reply to the application Annex.3. 5. The learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City through impugned order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 rejected the said application (Annex.3) of the petitioners-defendants holding inter-alia that since the witness PW2 Ganpat Singh had clearly stated that General Manager of the Trust was Shri Gopal Singh, therefore, he had power to file the present suit and thus, the objection about maintainability of the suit was rejected. Apart from this, it was further observed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) that the case is proceeding for final arguments since 28.1.1999 and therefore, the application Annex.3 was filed by the petitioners-defendants to delay the suit proceedings. 6. Aggrieved from the said order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City, the petitioners-defendants have filed this writ petition. 7. Civil Judge (JD) that the case is proceeding for final arguments since 28.1.1999 and therefore, the application Annex.3 was filed by the petitioners-defendants to delay the suit proceedings. 6. Aggrieved from the said order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City, the petitioners-defendants have filed this writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants and the learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs and gone through the material available on record. 8. In my considered opinion, the impugned order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD), Jodhpur City does not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity in any manner. 9. There is no dispute on the point that the application for amendment of the pleadings can be filed at any stage even at the time when the appeal is being heard. But, in the present case, as the suit was running for final arguments since 28.1.1999 and the present application Annex.3 seeking amendment in the written statement (Annex.2) was filed by the petitioners defendants in the year 2004, therefore, in these circumstances, the present application Annex.3 cannot be said to be bonafide one and the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) was right in observing that the application Annex.3 was filed the by petitioners defendants to delay the suit proceedings. 10. Apart from this, a bare perusal of the application (Annex.3) filed by the petitioners defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with sections 151 and 153 CPC reveals that it was simply stated in it that the suit was not maintainable, but the grounds, on the basis of which it was stated that the suit was not maintainable, have not been mentioned in it. From this point of view also, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) was right in rejecting the said application (Annex.3) of the petitioners-defendants. 11. Not only this, the learned Addl. Civil Judge (JD) in his impugned order Annex. 4 has discussed that aspect for which it was argued on behalf of the petitioners defendants that the suit was not maintainable and he has rightly answered that aspect of the matter. 12. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 as it does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. 12. For the reasons stated above, no interference is called for with the impugned order Annex.4 dated 24.11.2003 as it does not suffer from any basic infirmity or illegality and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. During the course of arguments, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that in case the writ petition is going to be dismissed by this Court, since question of maintainability of suit is a pure question of law, permission may be given to the petitioners-defendants to argue that point even without making any amendment in the written statement. This submission can be raised before the learned trial Judge and the learned trial Judge is free to decide that point in accordance with law.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. No order as to costs.Writ Petition dismissed. *******