[2026:RJ-JP:11625]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5989/2025 Ramavtar S/o Shri Parsadi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Near Bandariya Balaji, Trilok Nagar, Gangapurcity (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1 Hansraj S/o Late Shri Shivjilal, Since Deceased) Through His Legal Heirs

1/1 Priyanshu S/o Late Hansraj, Aged About 10 Years, 1/2 Muskan D/o Late Hansraj, Aged About 12 Years, 1/3 Bachchi D/o Late Hansraj, Aged About 2 Years, Minor Through Their Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Lali W/o Late Hansraj, R/o Near Bandariya Balaji, Trilok Nagar, Gangapurcity

2 Santra W/o Late Shri Shivjilal, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near Bandariya Balaji, Trilok Nagar, Gangapurcity Tehsil Gangapurcity

3 Virendra S/o Veeru S/o Late Shivjilal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near Bandariya Balaji, Trilok Nagar, Gangapurcity Tehsil Gangapurcity

4 Lali W/o Hansraj, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near Bandariya Balaji, Trilok Nagar, Gangapurcity Tehsil Gangapurcity ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj Ms. Jaya Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sonu Kumar for Mr. Keshav Kumar Agrawal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

18/03/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge No.2, Gangapurcity, in Civil Suit No. 262/2022, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 CPC has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that the plaintiff- petitioner instituted a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction. The learned Trial Court issued notices to the defendants-respondents, and upon receipt of the same, they filed their reply to the suit. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court appointed a Mauka Commissioner for inspection of the spot, who, after conducting the inspection, submitted his report on

29.11.2022.

2.1. Subsequently, the respondent filed an application to the said report and prayed for appointment of fresh commissioner.

2.2 Thereafter, vide order dated 06.02.2023 the learned trial Court observed that the report which has been prepared on 29.11.2022 is without issuing notice, thus, have very less evidentary value. Therefore, the learned Trial court appointed the other Mauka Commissioner who has given the report dated 10.02.2023.

2.3 The petitioner herein filed an application under Order IV Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment for the relief of demolision of construction which has been made during the pendency of the suit.

2.4 After hearing both parties, the learned Trial Court rejected the said application vide order dated 10.03.2025.

3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 10.03.2025, the plaintiff-

petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and the settled principles governing amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. He contends that during the pendency of the suit, the learned Trial Court initially appointed a Mauka Commissioner, who submitted his report dated 29.11.2022. Thereafter, a fresh Mauka Commissioner was appointed, who submitted a subsequent report dated 10.02.2023.

4.1 Learned counsel submits that the subsequent report dated 10.02.2023 clearly reveals that certain constructions were raised after the earlier report dated 29.11.2022. Thus, it constitutes a subsequent development during the pendency of the suit, which materially affects the rights of the parties.

4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in order to bring these subsequent facts on record and to incorporate an appropriate relief for demolition of the said unauthorized construction, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

4.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the proposed amendment neither changes the nature of the suit nor