[2025:RJ-JP:43853] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16493/2025 1. Samay Singh S/o Harprasad, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Nayi Sada, Town Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Toshanpal S/o Harprasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nayi Sada, Town Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioners-Defendants Versus Harprasad S/o Revti Prasad, Aged About 71 Years, Resident Of Nayi Sadak, Town Deeg, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Sharma for Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Judgment 01/11/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg, District Deega in Civil Suit No.10/2025 titled as "Harprasad Vs. Samay Singh", whereby, an amendment application filed by the plaintiff/respondent under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC, has been allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the learned Trial Court has permitted the plaintiff/respondent to incorporate pleas with regard to restoration of possession, the aforesaid amendment has changed the nature of the suit itself, therefore, the same ought not to have been allowed, and [2025:RJ-JP:43853] (2 of 3) [CW-16493/2025] accordingly prays that the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 may kindly be set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the record. 4. From perusal of the record, it is evident that the plaintiff/respondent has filed the suit for permanent injunction on 19.02.2019, wherein the plaintiff has also filed an application for temporary injunction. The defendants were then restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff/respondent, yet, in violation of the said interim protection, the defendant/petitioners have dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent on 12.05.2024. 5. It is trite law that, in a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff is dispossessed during the operation of an interim protection, the only remedy available to take such subsequent development on record is by way of an amendment application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC to do complete justice to the plaintiff/respondents. 6. Therefore, the Trial Court, after considering the fact that the plaintiff/respondents were dispossessed during the operation of the interim protection, has rightly held that the amendment to bring on record such a subsequent development is necessary for the just and proper adjudication of the main suit, as well as to avoid multiplicity of suits; otherwise the very object of filing the main suit would be frustrated. Therefore, the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21.08.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:43853] (3 of 3) [CW-16493/2025] does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality, or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. 9. All other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J Sudha/15