ORDER : Dinesh Mehta, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petition has laid challenge to the order dated 7.4.2017 passed by learned Addl. District Judge No. 3, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), whereby the petitioner's application dated 19.11.2016 filed under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been rejected. 2. The facts necessary for the adjudication of present writ petition are that the plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,30,627/- against the petitioner-defendant on 20.5.2011. 3. The petitioner-defendant had submitted his written statement on 24.11.2012, however it was decreed ex-parte, vide judgment and decree dated 26.5.2014. Subsequent thereto the said ex-parte decree came to be set aside by the Trial Court, vide its order dated 16.9.2016. 4. After recalling of the ex-parte decree, the petitioner moved an application dated 19.11.2016, and sought amendment in the written statement inter alia, on the ground that the said written statement had been got typed on the blank papers, by his counsel, though signed by him. It was thus contended that correct and complete facts could not be incorporated in the written statement. 5. It was thus contended that correct and complete facts could not be incorporated in the written statement. 5. It will not be out of place to reproduce the contents of para No. 2 of the application, which reads as under:- ^^2 & ;g fd mDr vkosnu esa izfroknh us Li"V vadu fd;k fd izfroknh }kjk tks rF; vius iwoZ ds vf/koDrk dks crk;s mu vf/koDrk us fdlh vU; vf/koDrk dks i=koyh lkaSi nh vkSj mu vf/koDrk egksn; us izfroknh }kjk crk;s x;s rF;ksa ls fHkUu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij euedlwn tokc izLrqr dj fn;k tks fd okLrfod rF;ksa ls fHkUu gSA ftu vk/kkjkas ij izfroknh dh vksj ls tokc nkok izLrqr fd;k x;k mldh tkudkjh gh izfroknh dks ugha Fkh D;ksafd mDr tokc nkok izfroknh ds gLrk{kjlqnk [kkyh dkxtksa ij dEI;wVj Vafdr dj is'k dj fn;k FkkA okLrfod rF;ksa dk vadu izfroknh }kjk izLrqr vkns'k 9 fu;e 13 fl0iz0l0 ds vkosnu esa vafdr fd;s gSA rnuqlkj izfroknh vius tokc nkos esa fuEu la'kks/ku djkus dk vf/kdkjh gSA d & tokc nkos ds iSjk la[;k 2 esa vafdr ekSf[kd Lrj ij euedlwn rjhds ls tkjh dj nh ds LFkku ij ekSf[kd Lrj ij 188000@& v{kjs ,d yk[k vB~;klh gtkj :0 udn ys fy;s vkSj ek= 88000@& vB~;klh gtkj :i;s dh jlhn oknh QeZ us izfroknh dks nh os 'ks"k 100000@& v{kjs ,d yk[k :i;s dh jlhn oknh us izfroknh dks ugha nh vkSj oknh us ekSf[kd Lrj ij dgk fd gekjh QeZ dk fo'okl gh jlhn gS mDr jde dh jlhn ge fcy tkjh djsaxs rc mlds lkFk ns nsaxsA bl izdkj oknh dh fu;r 'kq: ls gh [kjkc Fkh tkucq>dj izfroknh ls ek= :i;s ,Bus ds fy;s fnuakd 22-05-2008 dks :0 188000@& izkIr dj izfroknh dks oknh QeZ }kjk viuh euethZ ls ek= 88000@& dh jlhn tkjh dj nh rFkk :0 100000@& dh dksbZ jlhn izfroknh dks ugha nhA [k & ;g fd tokc nkos ds iSjk la[;k 4 dks la'kksf/kr djk fuEukuqlkj vafdr fd;k tkos& ^^;g fd izfroknh dk bf.Mdk dkj Mh,yth V~cks ekSf[kd rkSj ls vo'; nh xbZ fdUrq okgu ysrs gh 10 fnu ds Hkhrj gh oknh ds O;fDr vklhUn vkdj okgu ;g dgdj okil ys x;s fd ge okgu dks ys tk jgs gS ,oa vkids tek :0 188000@& okil Hkst nsaxsA ml le; rd izfroknh dks oknh us dksbZ dkxtkr ugha fn;s ;Fkk okgu ds dkxtkr fcy] chek vkfn ugha fn;sA tgka rd :0 188000@& dk iz'u gS] :0 88000@& izfroknh us igys ns fn;s vkSj mlds rqjUr ckn oknh us izfroknh dks ;g dgk fd :0 100000@& vkSj ns nks rRdky izfroknh us :0 100000@& dk pSd fn;k fdUrq mls ysdj oknh us dgk fd :i;s udn pkfg;s rks izfroknh us cktkj ls :0 100000@& ykdj oknh dks fn;sA oknh us pSd vkSj :i;s nksuksa j[k fy;sA bl izdkj bl iwjs izdj.k esa oknh dk dk;Z o d`R; csbZekuh iwoZd jgkA x & ;g fd tokc nkos ds iSjk la[;k 6 dks la'kksf/kr djk fuEukuqlkj vafdr fd;k tkos& ;g fd mDr tokc ds vuqlkj fcuk dkxtkr ds okgu fn;k fdUrq 10 fnu ds vUnj gh okil ys x;s vkSj >wBs rkSj ij izfroknh ds fo:) iqfyl Fkkuk lanj HkhyokM+k esa ,QvkbZvkj la[;k 223@2008 fnukad 04-09-2008 dks vUrxZr /kkjk 420 Hkk-n-la ds rgr eqdnek ntZ djok;k ftlesa iqfyl vuqla/kku ds ckn iqfyl us eqdnek >wBk ik;k vkSj vuqla/kku esa ;g vafdr djrs gq;s fd & lEiw.kZ vuqla/kku o miyC/k lk{; jsdkMZ ls izkFkhZ oknh us ,d okgu bf.Mdk vizkFkhZ izfroknh Jh vkse izdk'k dks VkVk eksVlZ QkbZusUl ls QkbZusUl dj QkbZusUl ds dkxtkr] igpku i=] vkMZj QkeZ] isu dkMZ] ysVj vkQ desVesUV chek okgu] vkj0lh0 djokus dk QkeZ] xsV ikl] fMysojh dkMZ] o Cysad pSd dh QksVksizfr;ka] ls jkf'k;k izkIr dj xkM+h vizkFkhZ dks lqiwnZ djuk rFkk vizkFkhZ }kjk :0 100000@& tek djkuk o jlhn ugha nsuk o jftLVsª'ku ds dkxtkr ugha nsuk ik;k x;k tks ekeyk vkilh ysu nsu dk gksdj flfoy uspj dk ik;k x;kA bl izdkj vfUre fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZA ?k & ;g fd tokc nkos ds iSjk la[;k 13 dks la'kksf/kr djk fuEukuqlkj vafdr fd;k tkos& ^^;g fd izfroknh dks bf.Mdk dkj Mh,yth V~cks ekSf[kd rkSj ls vo'; nh xbZ fdUrq okgu ysrs gh 10 fnu ds Hkhrj gh oknh ds O;fDr vklhUn vkdj okgu ;g dgdj okil ys x;s fd ge okgu dks ys tk jgs gS ,oa vkids tek :0 188000@& okil Hkst nsaxsA ml le; rd izfroknh dks oknh us dksbZ dkxtkr ugha fn;s ;Fkk okgu ds dkxtkr fcy] chek vkfn ugha fn;s rFkk izfroknh ls dqN [kkyh dketkrks ij gLrk{kj djokdj mijksDr dkxtkr cuokus gsrq oknh us vius ikl j[k fy;sA tgka rd :0 188000@& dk iz'u gS :0 88000@& izfroknh us igys ns fn;s vkSj mlds rqjUr ckn oknh us izfroknh dks ;g dgk fd :0 100000@& vkSj ns nks rRdky izfroknh us :0 100000@& dk pSd fn;k fdUrq mls ysdj oknh us dgk fd :i;s udn pkfg;s rks izfroknh us cktkj ls :0 100000@& ykdj oknh dks fn;sA oknh us pSd vkSj :i;s nksuks j[k fy;sA bl izdkj bl iwjs izdj.k esa oknh dk dk;Z o d`R; csbZekuh iwoZd jgkA oknh }kjk izfroknh dks fn;k x;k okgu okil izkIr dj ysus ls oknh dh izfroknh esa dksbZ jde cdk;k ugha gksus ls ;g okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS cfYd izfroknh oknh ls :0 188000@& izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA blh izdkj izkFkZuk esa Hkh fuEu la'kks/ku djk;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% Jheku U;k;ky; ls izkFkZuk gS fd izkFkhZ dk tokcnkok Lohdkj Qjek;k tkdj oknh }kjk izLrqr okn i= dks lO;; [kkfjt fd;k tkdj izfroknh ls oknh us tks voS/k rkSj ls :0 188000@& izkIr fd;s x;s gSA mDr jkf'k :0 188000@& e; C;kt izfroknh dks oknh fnyk;s tkus dh fMØh ikfjr Qjek;sA** 6. A perusal of the application, seeking amendment reveals that the petitioner has made an attempt to take altogether a different stand than, the one taken in the written statement. The petitioner has also sought to incorporate the facts in relation to FIR No. 223/2008 dated 4.9.2008 and that the police has submitted an F.R. in this case. 7. Upon consideration of the petitioner's application, the learned Trial Court has rejected petitioner's application vide order dated 07.04.2017, with the following observation, which reads as under:- vizkFkhZ & oknhi{k dh vkSj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;k ftlesa U;kf;d n`"VkUr 2013(4) DNJ (Raj) 523 Jameel Mohd. v. Durgesh Ors. ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; us fu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd%& tokc esa dh xbZ Lohd`fr;ksa ls ;kph eqdj ugha ldrk& fopkj.k izkjEHk gksus ds ckn la'kks/ku Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk&izdFku ugha fd lE;d :i ls tkx:d gksus ds ckn Hkh ;kph iwoZ esa vfHkokd~ mBkus esa vlQy jgk& fu.khZr] vkosnu [kkfjt djus esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; us dksbZ voS/krk ugha dh gSA ifj.kker% izkFkhZ& izfroknh }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk i= fnukafdr 19-11-2016 vUrxZr vkns'k 6 fu;e 17 o /kkjk 151 fl0iz0 lafgrk vLohdkj dj :0 500 gtsZ ij [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA 8. Mr. V.N. Kalla, learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the order dated 7.4.2017 contended that the learned Court below has failed to decide the petitioner's application in right perspective, and that the amendments sought by the petitioner, would neither change the nature of the suit nor would prejudice rights of the parties, for which, his application for amendment of the written statement ought to have been allowed. 9. Mr. V.N. Kalla relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2013 DNJ (SC) 75 in the matter of Abdul Rehman & Anr. v. Mohd. Ruldu & Ors. While reading para 8 thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court should be liberal in allowing the amendment application. Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "(8) The original provision was deleted by Amendment Act 46 of 1999, however, it has again been restored by Amendment Act 22 of 2002 but with an added proviso to prevent application for amendment being allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. The above proviso, to some extent, curtails absolute discretion to allow amendment at any stage. At present, if application is filed after commencement of trial, it has to be shown that in spite of due diligence, it could not have been sought earlier. The object of the rule is that Courts should try the merits of the case that come before them and should, consequently, allow all amendments that may be necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties provided it does not cause injustice or prejudice to the other side. This Court, in a series of decisions has held that the power to allow the amendment is wide and can be exercised at any stage of the proceeding in the interest of justice. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize the litigation and the plea that the relief sought by way of amendment was barred by time is to be considered in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. The above principles have been reiterated by this Court in J. Samuel and Others v. Gattu Mahesh and Others, (2012) 2 SCC 300 and Rameshkumar Agarwal v. Rajmala Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 337 . Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider whether the appellants have made out a case for amendment." 10. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and the judgment cited at Bar. 11. A perusal of the amendment application filed by the petitioner reveals that, the basic premise or the reason assigned by the petitioner in his application, seeking amendment is that his earlier counsel had drafted the reply without instructions of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner failed to incorporate various relevant facts in the written statement. 12. In considered view of this Court such ground does not fall in the ambit and scope of the application seeking amendment. After filing a written statement, a litigant cannot disown the contents thereof, merely by alleging that the written statement or pleading in question was submitted by his counsel, without proper and complete instructions and the same was got typed on blank papers, signed by him. The objection taken by the petitioner itself is untenable rather intolerable by the Courts of law. 13. The objection taken by the petitioner itself is untenable rather intolerable by the Courts of law. 13. The other argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the written statement would not change the nature of the suit is also misplaced and hence untenable in the eye of law. As far as written statement and amendment therein are concerned, the same in no manner can change the nature of the suit. Such principle is applicable in cases of amendment of the plaint only. 14. If the amendment as sought by the petitioner is allowed, the same would result in changing the factual position and stand of the very defendant. Such stand cannot be permitted to be changed by the Courts of law, more particularly for the reasons assigned by the petitioner. 15. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner in case of Abdul Rehman (supra) is a judgment on the basic principle governing application seeking amendment, but the facts of the present case are quite different. 16. The application in question, if tested on the principles, governing the law of amendment, of pleadings, the present application dated 19.11.2016 can neither be said to be a bona fide application nor particularly is necessary to meet the ends of justice, at such a belated stage. 17. This Court, while deciding similar case, in relation to amendment in the written statement, in the case of Smt. Sarita Dalmiya v. Ashish Loda in Civil Writ Petition No. 9823/2017 decided on 6.9.2017 has observed that on account of advent of a new lawyer, if amendment is sought, the same cannot be permitted, if the circumstances of the case does not call for such amendment. It will not be out of place to reproduce the relevant part of the said judgment, which reads as under:- "Considering the averments made in the application, as a parting remark, it may be observed that creativity or ingenuity of the incoming lawyer cannot be a reason for maintaining an application and merely because a new lawyer has entered the proceedings, the lacuna allegedly left, cannot be permitted to be filled, in the manner attempted to." 18. Now new facts have come to the petitioner's knowledge and he was very much aware of these facts at the time of submitting his written statement, for which the amendments in question cannot be permitted to be incorporated. 19. Now new facts have come to the petitioner's knowledge and he was very much aware of these facts at the time of submitting his written statement, for which the amendments in question cannot be permitted to be incorporated. 19. In view of the discussion above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned dated 7.4.2017. The writ petition thus fails.