JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. Since the controversy involved in the instant petitions is common, therefore, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:

"i. the impugned order dated 04.09.2012 (An.P.6), may kindly be quashed and set aside;

ii. the application dated 24.07.2012 (An.P.5) may also be rejected/dismissed with costs throughout;

iii. Heavy costs be imposed on the defendants No. 4, 9 and 10 for abusing the process of the Court and the learned Trial Court may also be directed to hold an inquiry in this matter."

3. The bone of contention in the present case is the amended written statement filed by the respondents-defendants in response to the suit bearing Civil Original Suit No. 3/2009 filed by the plaintiff-petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jodhpur as well as the application seeking withdrawal thereof coupled with the subsequent application for treating such withdrawal application as null and void.

As per the pleaded facts, the aforesaid suit was pertaining to the sale agreement/sale deed of a land comprising Khasra No. 546 of Village Dhinana Ki Dhani, Patwar Circle Pal, Tehsil and District Jodhpur (which has now been converted into an urban land).

4. Looking to the commonality of the issues involved in these petitions, learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments in respect of SBCWP No. 9914/2012 (the lead case).

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners submits that the plaintiffs-petitioners prayed in the aforementioned suit that the 2 bighas of land, which has been sold in their favour through defendant No. 13, a power of attorney holder of defendant No. 14, and thus, the plaintiffs/petitioners are in lawful possession of the said land since then. Learned counsel thus submits that the subsequent sale deed dated 28.05.2008 executed in respect of the disputed land, in favour of other persons, is null and void in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners further submits that subsequent to a written statement dated 15.07.2009 filed by the respondents-defendants in response to the aforementioned suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners, an amended written statement was also filed by defendants No. 4, 5, 9 & 10 on 04.01.2011 stating therein that the earlier written statement was filed on their behalf by misleading them.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners also submits that on 16.09.2011, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was also filed for taking the amended written statement on record. Learned counsel however submits that the defendants No. 4, 5, 9 & 10 moved an application on 17.01.2012 before the learned trial court with an averment that they wish to withdraw the amended written statement filed by them on 04.01.2011 as well as the application dated 16.09.2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, and thus, the same may not be taken on record.

8. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners further submits that subsequent to the aforementioned application dated 17.01.2012, respondent No. 4 (defendant) filed another application on 02.02.2012 stating therein that filing of the aforesaid application dated 17.01.2012 seeking withdrawal of the amended written statement was not within her knowledge, and thus, the same was prayed to be treated as null and void.

9. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners also submits that on 24.07.2012, respondent No. 4 (defendant) again preferred an application praying therein that the amended written statement filed on 04.01.2011 and the application dated 16.09.2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for taking the amended written statement on record may be recalled while treating the same as withdrawn, and accordingly, she may be permitted to contest the suit.

10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs-petitioners further submits the respondent No. 4 (defendant) had alleg