JUDGMENT :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

With consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal.

2. The lis in question arises out of the order dated 16/09/2015 passe by learned District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.287/2015 whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 16 read with section 151 CPC has been rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that one application bearing no.1150/2010 was filed on 25/03/2010 for grant of probate in respect of will dated 15/02/2007 and reply to the said application was filed by defendant-respondent no.4. The said application was registered as Civil Suit No.287/2015 and the defendant-respondent filed their written statements/reply. An application was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 read with section 151 of CPC to substitute the term 'Probate' by 'Letter of Administration' in the body of plaint, which was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 21/08/2015. The defendants-respondents were also given liberty by the learned court below to amend their written statement accordingly, in view of the amended plaint.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner contended that in the light of the order dated 21/08/2015, right of the defendants-respondents to file reply to the amended plaint was only to the extent of the contents amended by the plaintiff-petitioner and not beyond to that. However, in the garb of the liberty granted by the learned court below, the defendants-respondents made substantial changes in the written statement/reply and the same was totally inconsistent with the earlier reply/written statement. In this background, on 04/09/2015 the plaintiff-petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 16 for striking out of the pleadings in the written statement which were beyond the scope. The said application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 16/09/2015 and being aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

5. In support of the said contentions, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Gurudial Singh v. Raj Kumar Aneja: 2002(2) SCC 445 as also a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Ramswaroop (since deceased) through his Lrs. Smt. Gyandar & Ors. v. Manna Lal & Ors.: 2015 WLC (Raj.) (UC) 602. While relying upon the said judgments, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submitted that a new plea cannot be permitted to be added in the garb of consequent amendments. In the case in hand, the amendment, which was permitted by the learned court below was limited to the contents of the amended portion only. Therefore, new pleas and inconsistent pleadings should be struck off and the impugned order should be recalled.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants-respondents supported the order impugned passed by the learned court below and submits that while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the writ court can only interfere when there is a manifest error, jurisdictional error or foundational error in the order impugned. Learned counsel contends that in the case in hand, justified reasons have been given by the learned court below for dismissing application of the plaintiff-petitioner. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Abdul Razak (D) through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle & Ors.: (2010) 2 SCC 432 and also judgments of coordinate Bench of this Court in Maqsooda v. Abdul Karim & Ors.: 1996(2) RLW 70 and in Ramchandra v. Mahendra Singh: AIR 1980 RAJ 4. He further s