[2025:RJ-JP:1526] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6566/2009 Waha Panchayat Ajmer through Minister, Longia Hospital Road, Delhi Gate, Ajmer ----Petitioner Versus Bhawar Lal S/o Shri Bodu Lal Agarwal (deceased) through legal representatives: 1. Rameshwar Lal S/o Late Shri Bhawar Lal 2. Shri Chandraprakash S/o Late Shri Bhawar Lal 3. Surajmal S/o Late Shri Bhawar Lal 4. Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Bhawar Lal All R/o Jatiawas, Ajmer 5. Additional Civil Judge No.5 (Junior Division), Ajmer ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Veyankatesh Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dilip Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 13 /01/2025 This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- petitioner (for short ‘the defendant’) under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge No. 5, (Junior Divison), Ajmer in civil suit No. 253/1993, whereby the application filed by the defendant under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that respondent Nos. 1 to 4-plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The said suit was dismissed on account of compromise arrived at between the [2025:RJ-JP:1526] (2 of 3) [CW-6566/2009] parties. After that, plaintiffs filed restoration application for restoration of said suit. Thereafter, the said suit was restored on payment of cost of Rs. 250/-. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC and the said application was dismissed by the trial Court because there was no pleadings regarding compromise between the parties. Learned counsel for the defendant also submits that defendant filed an application before the trial Court under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the written statement filed by the defendant, but the trial Court vide order dated 13.04.2009 dismissed the application filed by the defendant. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the parties because compromise was arrived at between them but plaintiffs violated the terms and conditions of the compromise. So, defendant wanted to incorporate these pleadings in his written statement as the application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC was dismissed by the trial Court. So, defendant had no option to amend his written statement. So, the order dated 13.04.2009 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the amendment application filed by the defendant be allowed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendant and submits that defendant had filed the amendment application after a lapse of 9 years, from the date of purported compromise dated 24.01.2000. The evidence of the parties was completed and matter was posted for final arguments. After taking up 14 adjournments at the stage [2025:RJ-JP:1526] (3 of 3) [CW-6566/2009] of filing arguments, the defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC to cause with a view to delay in the matter. So, the trial Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the defendant. So, present petition filed by the defendant be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendant as well as learned counsel for the plaintiffs. It is an admitted position that defendant filed the amendment application after a lapse of 9 years from the date of purported compromise dated 24.01.2000. If defendant had any grievance on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the compromise then, he could have filed the amendment application then and there after the restoration of the suit. Defendant had taken 14 adjournments at the stage of final arguments and thereafter filed application under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. So, in my considered opinion, trial Court had not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the defendant. So, the present civil writ petition filed by the defendant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed accordingly. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/61