JUDGMENT :

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 03.05.2016 passed by the Court of Addl. District & Sessions Judge No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan (for short ‘the trial court’), in Civil Suit No.58/2014, Raj Bahadur Rajoriya v. Lalchand Rajoriya & Ors., whereby disposed of both the applications filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC and the another application filed by the defendant No.3 seeking amendment to discharge the defendant No.3 from proving the issues No.2 and 3. The plaintiff/ petitioner has also challenged the order dated 26.09.2016 passed by the trial court by which the review application filed by the plaintiff/defendant in regard to reviewing the order dated 03.05.2016 was also dismissed.

2. The facts related to the issue involved in the matter are that the plaintiff/ petitioner filed a civil suit for recovery and permanent injunction before the trial court stating that the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 5 are the members of the Joint Family and as per the Family Settlement dated 15.10.1995, there was a settlement of division of the property of the family as per the Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 14.12.1995. In the plaint the details of the settlement and the issues of the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendants were mentioned.

3. The defendants No.1,2,3 and 6 filed their written statements separately.

4. The plaintiff/petitioner also filed separate rejoinders in regard to the written statements submitted by the defendants.

5. On 04.07.2015, the learned trial court framed six issues for adjudication of the dispute raised in the civil suit, which are as under:-

1- vk;k oknh o izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 5 ds e/; gq, ekSf[kd foHkktu fn0 15-10-95 ,oa eseksjs.Me vkWQ lSVyesUV fn0 14-12-95 ds vuqlkj fnYyh jksM fLFkr leLr QSDVªh 'ksM oknh dks izkIr gq;sA ftuesa ls uhps okys chp ds ,d 'ksM dk fdjk;k izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 dks [kpsZ ds fy, 2500&2500 :i;s nsus ds cnys oknh us NksM j[kk Fkk izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk uhps ds nks 'ksMksa dks feykdj ,d djds mldks flrEcj 2009 ls 15]000 :i;s izfrekg dh nj ls izfroknh la[;k&6 dks vukf/kÑr :i ls ,oa /kks[kk/kM+h djds fdjk;s ij ns fn;kA mDr ÑR; izfroknh la[;k 1 o 2 ds }kjk 3 o 5 dks iSlk ,oa vkfFkZd ykHk nsus ds fy, fd;k x;kA blfy, oknh izfroknh la[;k 1 yxk;r 5 ls mDr lEifRr dk fdjk;k 01-09-09 ls 23-08-12 rd 15]000 :i;s ekfld dh nj ls e; C;kt 18 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls 36 ekg dk dqy 6 yk[k 75 gtkj :i;s la;qDr :i ls ,oa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\

---------oknh

2- vk;k ekSf[kd foHkktu fn0 15-10-95 o eseksj.Me fn0 14-12-95 esa uhps okyk ‘ksM ehuk dh 'kknh rd 'kknh ds [kpsZ ds mi;ksx esa j[kk tk;sxk] ntZ ugha FkkA 'kknh ds ckn uhps okyk 'ksM oknh dks feyus okyk rF; eseksj.Me esa ckn esa bckjr tksMdj oknh }kjk cढ+k;k x;k gSA izfroknh la0 1 ds }kjk uhps okyk 'ksM viuh o viuh iRuh ds xqtkjk HkRrs ds fy, j[kk x;k vkSj ogh mldk fdjk;k izkIr dj jgs gSaA mDr 'ksM oknh ds fgLls esa dHkh ugha vk;k\

--------izfroknh la[;k&1 yxk;r 5

3- vk;k okni= ds lkFk layXu uD'ks esa ABCD ls of.kZr lEifRr izfroknh la[;k&2 ds }kjk 9000@& :i;s ekfld fdjk;s ij izfroknh la[;k&6 dks nh xbZ gS\

---------izfroknh la[;k&2 yxk;r 5 o 6

4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&6 o oknh ds e/; fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ fizohVh vkWQ dkUVsDV ugha gSA blfy, izfroknh la[;k&6 oknh ls 50]000 :i;s fo'ks"k gtsZ ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ------izfroknh la[;k&6

5- vk;k oknh ds }kjk vkRegR;k djus o izfroknh la0 3 o 5 dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsdj caVokjk fn0 14-12-95 ij bUVjiksY;w'ku djds izfroknh la[;k&1 ds gLrk{kj djok,A ;fn gka rks nkos ij bldk D;k vlj gksxk\

---------izfroknh la0&1

6- vuqrks"k

6. The plaintiff/petitioner then filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 read with section 151 CPC stating that the issues framed by the learned trial court are not as per law and the contents of the pleadings of the parties. It has been stated in the applicati