[2026:RJ-JP:5959] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2620/2026 Santosh Devi W/o Shri Narayan Singh, R/o Bhainsawat Khurd, Tehsil Buhana, Dist. Jhunjhunu. Presently Residing At Ward No. 20, Behind Bhootnath Shamshan Ghat, Chirawa, Tehsil Chirawa, Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Narendra Sharma S/o Mahesh Sharma, R/o Behind Police Station Mandrela, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) Through Power Of Attorney Dharmaveer S/o Khyaliram R/o Alipur, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pratyushi Metha Mr. Vedant Agarwal Mr. Rajat Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 09/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing order dated 21.01.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chirawa, in Civil Case No. 273/2016, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner-defendant has been rejected under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for amendment in the issue. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial court, without duly considering the pleadings of the parties, has erroneously declined to amend the issue as proposed by the petitioner in his application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC. The proposed issue pertained to whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant. [2026:RJ-JP:5959] (2 of 2) [CW-2620/2026] 3. Heard and perused the material available on records. 4. The suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell was filed by the respondent–plaintiff against the present petitioner–defendant. Issues were duly framed by the learned Trial Court on 07.04.2018. A perusal of the entire pleadings reveals that the plaintiff has nowhere claimed possession of the disputed property. He has merely made a passing reference, while seeking relief of permanent injunction, that he should not be evicted; however, no specific issue in that regard has been framed. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to file an appropriate application if any such relief was intended to be pursued. This Court deems it appropriate to observe that the said relief of injunction has not been specifically incorporated in the issues. The defendant has no right to seek amendment of the issues, the burden of which would be on the plaintiff. 5. Therefore, this Courts finds no error so as to call for any interference under its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. 6. Hence the present writ petition stands dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J KRATIKA /34