[2025:RJ-JP:2448] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 509/2018 1. Ramlal S/o. Ladu, Resident Of Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. 2. Ramkaran S/o. Ladu, Resident Of Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. 3. Shokaran S/o. Ladu, Resident Of Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. 4. 4/1 4/2 4/3 4/4 4/5 Ramchandra S/o. Ladu, Resident Of Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. Since deceased Nandlal S/o Ramchandra, aged 54 years Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ramchandra aged 40 years Hanuman S/o Ramchandra aged 32 years Kali alias Sita D/o Ramchandra aged 48 years Sita D/o Ramchandra aged 45 years All R/o Bawari Tehsil Todaraisingh Tonk 5. Ramgilol @ Ramjilal S/o. Ladu, R/o. Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Deceased Through Lrs 6. Rampal S/o. Ramjilal, R/o. Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. 7. Nathu S/o. Ramjilal, R/o. Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. 8. Koshalya D/o. Ladu R/o. Bawari, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Kusum Lata W/o. Late Trilok Chand, By Caste Jain, R/o. Rajmahal Present Reside At Rajmahal Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. 2. Rajni D/o. Trilok Chand W/o. Anil Jain, R/o. Alwar Presently Reside At Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. 3. Nisha D/o. Trilok Chand W/o. Nirmal Jain, R/o. Alwar Presently Reside At Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. 4. Urmila D/o. Trilok Chand, Resident Of Alwar Presently Reside At Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. [2025:RJ-JP:2448] (2 of 4) [CW-509/2018] 5. Sunita D/o. Trilok Chand, R/o. Alwar Reside At Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. 6. Manoj S/o. Trilok Chand, R/o. Alwar Presently Reside At Rajmahal Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk. 7. Bhanu S/o. Trilok Chand, R/o. Alwar Presently Reside At Rajmahal, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 17/01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Malpura in CRA No. 13/2006 whereby the appellate Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the defendants filed an appeal against the respondents-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) in which the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement and the Appellate Court vide order dated 17.08.2012 allowed the application filed by the defendants and while partly allowing the appeal remanded the matter to the trial Court to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after taking the amendments in the written statement on record. Plaintiffs had challenged the said order before this Court [2025:RJ-JP:2448] (3 of 4) [CW-509/2018] and this Court vide order dated 08.12.2015 set aside the order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the appellate Court with a direction to decide the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC as well as the appeal afresh in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that the appellate Court vide order dated 21.11.2017 dismissed the application filed by the defendants seeking amendment in the written statement. Learned counsel further submits that the defendants wanted to amend the written statement as the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable because the disputed land is a charagah land. He also submits that the defendants would not adduce any evidence before the appellate Court in this regard and would argue the matter on merits. So, the order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the appellate Court be set aside and amendments sought by the defendants in their written statement be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendants and submitted that the defendants wanted to make material changes in their written statement. So, the appellate Court rightly disallowed the amendments sought by the defendants. So, the present petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is an admitted position that the appellate Court vide order dated 17.08.2012 allowed the amendments sought by the defendants. Said order was challenged by the plaintiffs before this Court and this Court vide order dated 08.12.2015 set aside the [2025:RJ-JP:2448] (4 of 4) [CW-509/2018] order dated 17.08.2012 passed by the appellate Court. Defendants wanted to amend the written statement on account of non-maintainability of the present suit as the disputed land belongs to charagah land. The contention of learned counsel for the defendants that defendants would not led any evidence in this regard, so, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed. Petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2017 passed by the appellate Court is set aside. The defendants are permitted to carry out the necessary amendments in their written statement The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal filed by the defendants without taking any evidence on the aforesaid amendments, expeditiously in accordance with law. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/72