JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with the prayer to quash order dated 23.11.2011 passed by the District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar upon application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. in Civil Case No. 106/2009 (99/2001). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plaintiff-respondents preferred two suits for eviction on the ground of reasonable and bonafide need of Gourav Kumar. Out of said two suits, the suit filed against one Vijay Chand was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Rent Tribunal, against which, appeal filed was also dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar. 3. In the suit tiled against the present defendant-petitioners, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. for making amendment in the written-statement and specific prayer was made that alter para 4 of the written-statement, the defendant-applicants may be permitted to incorporate para 4A, in which, it is submitted that the suit filed by Navneet Kumar and Gourav Kumar against Vijay Chand bearing No. 39/2003 on the basis of bona fide necessity was decided in their favour and, against that judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal, the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Sriganganagar dismissed the appeal also, therefore, the ground of bona fide necessity has already been satisfied. 4. Learned trial Court, after hearing counsel for the petitioner-defendants, rejected the said application for amendment in the suit for the reason that final argument in the suit were heard and written argument was submitted by the plaintiff-respondents on 19.10.2011 and copy of the said written statement was given to the petitioner-defendants, thereafter, on 20.10.2011, he took time for final argument, then, the matter was adjourned to 1.11.2011. On that date, counsel for the petitioner-defendant made request that he maybe permitted to file written argument and, again, opportunity was granted to file written argument on behalf of the defendant and matter was ordered to be fixed on 5.11.2011. But, on that date, instead of filing written argument on behalf of the defendant, an application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed for amendment in the written-statement. 5. But, on that date, instead of filing written argument on behalf of the defendant, an application under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. was filed for amendment in the written-statement. 5. Learned trial Court observed that the whole purpose of filing such application is to delay the conclusion of the trial and further observed that the fact of decision in the suit and appeal filed against Vijay Chand by the plaintiffs can be considered at the time of adjudication made in the suit. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. at final stage has rightly been rejected by the trial Court while observing that the fact of decision in the suit filed against Vijay Chand will be considered at the time of deciding the controversy. Therefore, it appears that the petitioner has unnecessarily filed this writ petition inspite of the fact that the trial Court observed in the order impugned that the fact of decision of another suit filed against Vijay Chand for eviction will be taken into consideration. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******