[2025:RJ-JP:9123] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16652/2024 Shri Rajendra Prasad Sharma S/o Late Shri Pandit Shri Radhey Lal Sharma, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Awadhpuri, Jonsganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Poosalal Adopted S/o Shri Kishan Ji, Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs 1/1 Smt Durga Devi, W/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/2 Shri Prabhudayal, S/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/3 Shri Trilokchand, S/o Late Shri Poosalal 1/4 Smt Indra D/o Late Shri Poosalal, All Are R/o Narsinghpura, Jonsganj, Ajmer 1/5 Smt Champa W/o Shri Trilock Chand Ji Mali @ Mohallal Mahavar, D/o Late Shri Poosalal R/o Behind H.m.t, Near House Of Ganesh Gurjar, Jawahar Ki Nadi, Byawar Road, Ajmer 2. Shri Kana, S/o Late Shri Choga 3. Shri Kalu, S/o Late Shri Pukha 4. Shri Govind S/o Late Shri Pukha, Since Deceased Through Legal Heirs 4/1 Smt Beena Devi, W/o Late Shri Govind 4/2 Master Shubam Minor, Son Of Late Shri Govind 4/3 Ms Anjlika, Minor, D/o Late Shri Govind 4/4 Ms Sneha, Minor, D/o Late Shri Govind 4/5 Ms Prathisha Minor D/o Late Shri Govind, 4/2 To 4/5 Through Natural Guridian Mother Smt Beena Devi W/o Late Shri Govind, All Are R/o Village, Banseli, Sub Tehsil, Pushkar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga Mr. Rahul Singh Chauhan [2025:RJ-JP:9123] (2 of 3) [CW-16652/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 03/03/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) against the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer in civil suit No. 48/2016 whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance and possession against the respondents- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) in which defendant Nos. 2 to 4 filed counter claim that defendant No.1 had sold his 1/3rd share of land. So, defendant No.1 had no share in the disputed land and rest of the land belongs to defendant Nos. 2 to 4 but the trial Court had not framed the issue regarding the averment made by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 and dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court had to frame the issue as per the pleadings of the parties. So, the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the trial Court be directed to frame issue as per the averments made by defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in their counter claim. Learned counsel for the defendants has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiff and submitted that in the present case issues were framed and plaintiff had adduced his evidence. Present case is related to specific performance of the contract. The question as to whether the [2025:RJ-JP:9123] (3 of 3) [CW-16652/2024] defendant No.1 had sold his land or not, is not to be decided. So, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff. So, the present petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The trial Court while dismissing the application filed by the plaintiff clearly mentioned that proposed issue is rebuttal of issue No.1. The suit was filed for specific performance of the contract, so additional issue was not required to be framed. So, the present writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/129