JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 19.8.2011 (Annex. 3) passed by the District Judge, Churu to the extent that it does, not, permit.the amendment and learned Court below may be directed for incorporation of amendment by way of filing affidavit. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit filed by the respondent was decreed by the trial Court, in which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge, Churu. During the pendency of the appeal, it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that out of 16 shops available with the respondent, one shop was vacated and possession was given to the respondent by tenant Mehboob Ali and respondent subsequently gave that shop on rent to Suresh Kumar on 23.9.2006. After getting knowledge, the petitioner filed an application before the appellate Court on 13.8.2007 under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C., in which, it is prayed that amendment in the written-statement by way of adding paragraph 6(g)(i) may be allowed and petitioner may be permitted to incorporate the fact of having possession of one vacant shop and thereafter renting out it to Suresh Kumar. The main purpose of the petitioner is to explain that there is no reasonable and bonafide necessity of shop in question. 3. The learned appellate Court allowed the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. but did not permit the petitioner to amend the pleadings and directed that petitioner may file his affidavit while incorporating the above-mentioned amendment and respondent may file counter to the affidavit filed by the petitioner. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, once amendment under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. is allowed, then, the application was to be allowed in toto and petitioner was to be permitted to incorporate the proposed amendment in the written-statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1905 , Bondar Singh & Ors. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1905 , Bondar Singh & Ors. v. Nihal Singh Ors., so also, judgment reported in (2010) 1 SCC 466 and submits that once it is found that the subsequent facts are required to be taken on record, then, the appellate Court ought to have allowed the appellant-petitioner to incorporate the said facts in the written-statement and further the appellate Court was to grant opportunity to lead evidence to prove the said fact but it has not been done, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that while accepting the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17, C.P.C. the learned appellate Court passed order only to take those facts on record by way of filing affidavit; meaning thereby, it is accepted by the appellate Court that said facts will be considered at the time of adjudication of the appeal. In my opinion, the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are based on altogether different facts, therefore, those judgments are not applicable in the present case.In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the impugned order.Hence this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******