JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 18.08.2011 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 , C.P.C. for recalling the plaintiff for re-examination was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the civil suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff he is defendant and an application was filed for amendment in the written-statement and learned trial Court allowed the said application for amendment in the written-statement. Thereafter, an application was filed by the petitioner-defendant to recall the plaintiff for re-examination but the learned trial Court rejected the application for the reason that for last five years the case is fixed for recording evidence of the defendant but only to delay the matter this application has been filed. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the reason given by the trial Court is totally erroneous because after allowing the amendment in the written-statement, it was necessary to recall the plaintiff for his evidence. Therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed for the simple reason that after amendment in the written statement it is felt necessary by the petitioner-defendant to reexamine the plaintiff, therefore, it is prayed that order impugned may be quashed and the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 , C.P.C. may be allowed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the intention of filing the above application is only to delay the proceedings because amendment was allowed to the extent of the fact that plaintiff-respondent has started business in another shop and that amendment was allowed to be made upon acceptance of the plaintiff, therefore, there was no reason in existence for recalling the plaintiff for his re-examination, therefore, the trial Court rejected the prayer of the defendant to recall the plaintiff, in which, there is no error. It is also pointed out that the trial Court observed in the order that petitioner-defendant can prove the facts incorporated by way of amendment in the written-statement by leading evidence; but, since 2006, he is not producing any evidence, therefore, the intention of filing the application for recalling the plaintiff is totally unwarranted. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 5. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the order impugned. 5. In the order passed by the trial Court in the suit, it is specifically observed that for last five years the matter is fixed for recording evidence of the petitioner-defendant but no witness has been produced before the Court; and, now, an amendment was sought in the written-statement which is accepted by the Court upon admission of the plaintiff, therefore, there is no reason to recall the plaintiff. In my opinion, the trial Court has rightly arrived at the finding that the petitioner-defendant is unnecessarily filing application to delay the final adjudication of the suit. Therefore, the order dated 18.08.2011 impugned in this writ petition does no suffer from any illegality or infirmity. More so, it is based upon sound reasons. Therefore, there is no substance in this writ petition.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******