JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"1. This writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 19.09.2016 (Annexure-7) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC may kindly be dismissed.

2. That the order dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure-4) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC may kindly be dismissed."

3. As the pleaded facts and the record of the case would reveal, the bone of contention in the present case is a shop, which is a part of Plot No. 383 (admeasuring 100.61 square metres), 3rd C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, in regard whereto, original plaintiff/respondent No. 1-Smt. Usha Sharma w/o Late Shri Taresh Sharma has instituted a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'CPC') before the learned court below, seeking declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction as well as recovery of mesne profits.

3.1. The learned court below found that the possession of the shop premises in question were transferred to the present petitioners/defendants through an agreement to sale executed by Late Shri Taresh Sharma, but at the time of execution of such agreement, the said shop premises were owned by the original plaintiff/respondent No. 1, wife of Late Shri Taresh Sharma. However, the stipulations as to the payment of consideration in the agreement were not fulfilled by the petitioners/defendants, and hence, the original plaintiff/respondent No. 1, after repeated demands for payment of rent and the default in making such payment on the part of the petitioners/defendants, sought to evict the petitioners/defendants from the shop premises in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application was filed by the respondent No. 2-Rajkumar Vyas, under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead him as plaintiff in place of the original plaintiff-Smt. Usha Sharma, on count of the fact that he is the person in whom the interest of the shop premises in question has devolved; the said application was allowed by the learned court below, vide order dated 06.02.2015, to the extent as indicated therein, while holding that Shri Vyas, had acquired an interest in the shop premises in question through a registered sale deed.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Court below, vide order dated 19.09.2016, accepted the application filed by the original plaintiff/respondent No. 1 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, with the finding that an amendment to the pleadings would not cause prejudice to the present petitioners/defendants.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants however, vehemently submitted that the nature of the suit pending before the learned court below would change, from a suit filed for declaration and recovery of mesne profits, to a suit for possession of the shop premises in question, if the impugned orders passed on the aforementioned applications, are not quashed by this Court.

6. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants relied upon the following case laws:

(i) 2009 (4) Civil Court Cases 768 (P & H) Laksmi & Ors. v. Karam Singh at Paras. 12 and 13, which reads as follows:

"12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, that by way of amendment, the plaintiff/respondent could not fill in lacuna, as the suit filed by him was dismissed by the learned trial Court. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that a suit for injunction could not be converted into one for possession. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Prem Chand v. Chetan Dass, 2006 (2) Civil Court C