JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners/defendants are aggrieved against the order dated 18.9.2008 by which the trial court allowed the plaintiff's application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, in the suit, the plaintiff has not mentioned the name of the firm under which he and his family members are doing the business of medicine. In the plaintiff's own statement in the trial court, he clearly stated that he has not filed the suit for Himmat Enterprises and the suit has been filed for the personal necessity of his mother. By amendment now, the plaintiff wants to plead that the ownership of Himmat Enterprises has changed from 1.4.2006 and now the plaintiff's wife has become proprietor. Before that, his mother was proprietor. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, by this, the plaintiff wants to withdraw his admission made in the statement before the trial court during the trial and also want to insert M/s. Himmat Enterprises in the plaint for seeking relief of eviction of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that before 1.4.2006, the firm Himmat Enterprises was in the proprietorship of plaintiff's mother and now it has come in the proprietorship of the plaintiff's wife. It is also submitted that the plaintiff and his family members are doing wholesale business in medicine. Therefore, there is no change in the facts or it is withdrawal of the admission of the plaintiff. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned order. 5. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint and amendment sought. 6. In the plaint, the plaintiff clearly stated that he and his family members are engaged in the wholesale business of medicine and in cross examination, even the defendants have put the question about M/s. Himmat Enterprises for which it has been stated that the suit has been filed not for the need of Himmat Enterprises and the suit has been filed for the need of his mother. In any case, the need of the plaintiff and his family members which has been pleaded is further shown to be stand changed because of the subsequent event on 1.4.2006. Therefore, if the trial court has allowed the amendment application, the trial court has not committed illegality. In any case, the need of the plaintiff and his family members which has been pleaded is further shown to be stand changed because of the subsequent event on 1.4.2006. Therefore, if the trial court has allowed the amendment application, the trial court has not committed illegality. It may be worthwhile to mention here that the statement of the plaintiff was recorded in the year 2002 whereas the ownership of Himmat Enterprises alleged to have been changed in the year 2006. Therefore, also, there is no merit in the writ petition.In view of the above, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******