JUDGMENT 1. - In the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff in the year 2003 earlier an application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., was filed on 14.2.2010 and the same was decided by the trial Court on 1.12.2010, against which writ petition was preferred before this Court and vide order dated 11.8.2011 co-ordinate Bench of this Court decided the said writ petition and quashed the order dated 1.12.2010 by which the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., was allowed. The petitioner again filed fresh application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., and prayed for incorporating the fact that some part of the building of Dharmshala has been rented out by the plaintiff to the Little Angel Public School and Johiya Gas Agency, therefore, the ground for demolishing the building for new construction taken for eviction is totally false. 2. Learned trial Court while considering the ground stated in the application for amendment in the written-statement observed that the suit has been fried under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, the ground for which amendment has been sought is totally irrelevant. 3. Learned trial Court observed in the order that the present application is identical to the application filed earlier under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., in which the Hon'ble High Court quashed the order of trial Court passed for amendment in the written-statement. Further, it is observed that the matter is at final stage, therefore, application has been filed only to delay the trial. The trial Court while observing the aforesaid reasons rejected the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., vide the impugned order dated 28.3.2012. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the order impugned is illegal because some subsequent events occurred after filing the written-statement, therefore, those facts are necessary to be incorporated for adjudication and as such the amendment is necessary but the learned trial Court rejected the application on illegal premises. Hence, the order impugned may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards certain judgments. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. 7. Hence, the order impugned may be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards certain judgments. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused the order impugned. 7. In my opinion, when the suit was filed after terminating the tenancy under Section 106, C.P.C., and earlier the order passed upon application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., in favour of the petitioner was quashed by the High Court which was based upon the same set of facts, then, it cannot be said that the application now filed by the defendant-petitioner is bonafide one. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order.Hence, this writ petitioner is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******