[2025:RJ-JP:5557] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10112/2019 1. Smt. Radha Rathi W/o Shri Giriraj Kumar Rathi, Aged About 58 Years, R/o 1458, Rathi Building, Partaniyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur. 2. Smt. Seema Nowal W/o Shri Ajay Nowal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 2137, Nowal Bhawan, Dara Market, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Veerbala Malpani W/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan Malpani, Aged About 79 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Virendra Malpani S/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan Malpani, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Pramod Malpani S/o Late Shri Prabhu Narayan Malpani, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 4. Rajendra Kumar Malpani S/o Late Shri Tejnarayan Malpani, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 5. Purshottam Malpani S/o Late Shri Tejnarayan Malpani, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 6. Anil Malpani S/o Late Shri Tejnarayan Malpani, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of House No. 326, Lalaniyon Ka Chowk, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.) 7. Nagar Nigam Through Its Mayor, Pandit Deendayal Upadhayay Bhawan, Lalkothi, Jaipur. 8. Commissioner, Hawa Mahal Zone-East, Opposite Sofia School, Ghatgate, Agra Road, Jaipur. ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:5557] (2 of 3) [CW-10112/2019] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Smt. Prakash Yadav, Adv. for respondent Nos.7 and 8 Mr. Deepak Sharma, Adv. for Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 07/02/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Nos.1 and 2-defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the order dated 02.03.2019 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur, in Suit No.116/2014, whereby the said Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent Nos.1 to 6-plaintiffs (for short "the plaintiffs) filed a suit for mandatory as well as permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed written statement. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that due to typographical error, defendants mentioned in their written statement that stair case is common but the same was not common, so defendants filed an application before the trial court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement filed by defendants to the effect that the stair case was not common and defendants are using it but trial court vide its order dated 02.03.2019 dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the amendment sought by the defendants be allowed and order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the trial court be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:5557] (3 of 3) [CW-10112/2019] Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that defendants in their written statement admitted that the stair case was common and plaintiffs' evidence was over. So, no ground was made out for amendment at this belated stage. So, trial court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that due to typographical error, the defendants mentioned in their statement that stair case was common and they were also using it. So in my considered opinion, by allowing the said amendment sought by the defendants, nature of the suit would not be changed. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserves to be allowed and the delay can be compensated by way of cost. Accordingly, the petition filed by the defendants is allowed. The order dated 02.03.2019 passed by the trial court is set aside. The trial court is directed to take the amended written statement on record subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the defendants to the plaintiffs on or before the next date of hearing. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s), disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J AVINASH GULERIA /33