JUDGMENT 1. - This Writ Petition has been filed by the defendant-petitioner assailing Order dated 10.12.2014 passed by Civil judge and judidal Magistrate (First Class), Pushkar, Ajmer (for short 'the Trial Court') by which application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The petitioner-defendant filed application before the Trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. inter alia starting therein that the plaintiff has acquired vacant possession of two shops, which are bigger than the shop let out to the defendant-petitioner and adjacent to the shop in which plaintiffs son Manish was running business of selling toys. The plaintiff has joined those two shops and by merging certain space available behind them, the plaintiff has sold the aforesaid shop to Railash Ratan Mali by registered sale deed dated 12.11.2012. Incorporation of these facts, which were based on subsequent development, were sought by the petitioner-defendant by making amendment in the written statement the Trial Court vide impugned order has rejected the application. 3. Mr. R.K. Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-defendant has submitted that the Trial Court was wholly unjustified in rejecting the application on the premise that similar application was already 1 rejected by the Trial Court on 10.1.2014. It is contended that earlier application was filed with regard to the fact that the plaintiff had acquired possession of two shops, but the new development now was that the plaintiff has sold those shops by joining them and merging some space lying behind them. The new shop, which was sold by the plaintiff, was four times in the size than that of the shop let out to the petitioner-defendant. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the Trial Court was shelly unjustified in rejecting the application because a specific issue being issue No. 1 was framed with regard to personal bona fide necessity of plaintiffs son, therefore, it was necessary to amend the written statement by incorporating aforesaid subsequent development. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that this very fact was incorporated in application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., which was filed by the defendant-petitioner earlier on 30.7.2012 and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 10.1.2014. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs submitted that this very fact was incorporated in application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., which was filed by the defendant-petitioner earlier on 30.7.2012 and was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 10.1.2014. Learned Counsel for the respondents, referring to the order sheets of the Trial Court, has submitted that suit in the present case was filed way back in the year 2004. Matter was fixed for evidence of the defendant, for the first time, on 23.7.2007 and since then it is pending on that stage. Only one witness i.e. DW-l, Ramchand was examined on 20.4.2009, i.e. after 17 dates. DW-2, Nand Kishore was examined on 29.3.2010. It was thereafter that the petitioner-defendant moved an application under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C. on 10.5.2010.to summon one Amol Arora. In order to ensure that the proceedings of the Civil Suit are not unduly delayed, the plaintiffs-respondents gave consent for examination of aforesaid witness. The defendant was directed to furnish PF and summons for service of that witness. The defendant has taken 11 dates from 10.5.2010 to 19.9.2011 to file PF and summons for that witness. He filed only PF on 19.9.2011 and did not file summons, for which purpose three dates were granted to the defendant, last one being 13.3.2012. Before the summon could be served, the defendant-petitioner filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. before the Trial Court on 30..7.2012, which remained pending before the Trial Court for l'A years and the application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 10.1.2014. Thereafter, PF and fresh summons have been filed for service of the aforesaid witness on 14.7.2014. The Trial Court has even imposed cost of Rs. 200/- on the plaintiff for not producing the witness on 3.11.2014. The avoid the effect of the aforesaid order, the defendant-petitioner has now again filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. on 1.12.2014, which has rightly been dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned Order dated 10.12.2014. 5. Perusal of the impugned order as also the stand of the petitioner indicates that sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Kailash Ratan Mai on 12.11.2012 whereas already application filed to that effect was pending before the Trial Court with regard to same shop, which was dismissed thereafter on 10.1.2014. 5. Perusal of the impugned order as also the stand of the petitioner indicates that sale deed was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of Kailash Ratan Mai on 12.11.2012 whereas already application filed to that effect was pending before the Trial Court with regard to same shop, which was dismissed thereafter on 10.1.2014. The petitioner could have sought incorporation of that fact about sale of aforesaid shop in that very application on that very stage, but the Trial Court none the less dismissed the application by not allowing the amendment. Now with regard to the same fact, the petitioner has filed new application which was dismissed by the Trial Court earlier. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The Trial Court is directed to grant the petitioner-defendant not more that two months time from the next date fixed before it for producing all his evidence. If he is unable to produce his evidence within that time, the Trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter finally within four months thereafter.The order has been passed considering the conduct of the petitioner who has not produced his evidence for last seven years.With the a for said direction. Writ Petition is dismissed. Shay application also stand dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******