IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the necessity of adhering to procedural timelines in civil proceedings, emphasizing that applications under Order VII Rule 11 are independent of written statements.

ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.09.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge No. 3, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Civil Suit No. 153/2022 (Dalpat Singh & Anr. v LRs of Jabbar Singh and Ors.).

2. The writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-

“That the petitioner most respectfully humbly prayed that-A. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed,

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and the order dated 25.09.2024 (Annex-9) passed in the civil Suit No.153/2022 titled as Dalpat Singh & Anr vs LRs of Jabbar Singh & ors, may kindly be quashed and set aside and the opportunity of Written statement of the Defendant No.1 may kindly be closed.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and in the alternative the Defendant may kindly be directed to file their Written statements and raised their defence before the Trial Court and then after the Trial Court may direct to proceed further in accordance with law for disposal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction may kindly be issued and the respondent may kindly be directed to maintain the status quo of the land in question.”

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for permanent and mandatory injunction in order to restrict the alienation of the plots no. F-292 and E-1435, which are proposed to be alloted by RIICO, in lieu of the acquisition of the land of Khasra No. 384 and 385 of Village Kharbera, Tehsil Luni and for issuing a lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. The said suit was registered on 09.11.2022 and service upon the respondents/defendants was completed on 19.11.2022. On the same day, i.e. 19.11.2022, the respondents/defendants sought time to file reply, while the petitioners/plaintiffs sought an interim order. Learned Trial Court rejected the prayer for granting interim relief in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs, aggrieved of which, the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Jodhpur Metro, which was further transferred to hearing before the Additional CIvil Judge No. 7, Jodhpur Metro ('Appellate Court').

4. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.03.2023, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a writ before this Court, which came to be decided on 10.04.2024 (Annex.2), whereby the parties were directed to maintain the status quo. Thereafter, the respondents/defendants preferred a reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'), while raising objection with regard to the maintainability of the suit, and learned Trial COurt after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 03.06.2023 (Annex.4) allowed the application while considering the objection raised by the respondents/defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit.

5. Aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Trial Court (Annex.4), the defendants/respondents preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge-I, Jodhpur, which came to be allowed vide order dated 22.03.2024, against which the petitioners/plaintiffs preferred a writ before this Court, whereby, vide order dated 27.05.2024 (Annex.5), this Court directed the parties to maintain status quo.

6. In the meanwhile, the respondents/defendants filed an application before the learned Trial Court under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC on 19.11.2022 (Annex.6), the reply thereof was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs on 09.05.2023 (Annex.7). Thereafter, on 25.09.2024, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of CPC to close the written statements of the defendants/respondents, which came to be dismissed by the learned Tr