Vineet Kothari, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 24.11.2009 of the learned trial Court whereby the amended plaint filed by the petitioner -plaintiff in the suit was not taken on record, despite the writ petition filed by the plaintiff -petitioner having been allowed by this Court while allowing the writ petition No. 6420/2003 on 21.3.2005 by a detailed judgment after hearing both the parties.
(2.) BY the impugned order dtd. 24.11.2009, the learned trial Court has refused to take this amended plaint on record filed by the plaintiff - petitioner on 20.4.2005 in pursuance of judgment of this Court dtd. 21.3.2005 by inferring that the amended plaint was not filed within a period of 14 days of allowing the amendment application. However, no such time frame was fixed by this Court while allowing the writ petition of the petitioner - plaintiff on 21.3.2005. After hearing the learned counsels and perusing the impugned order, this Court is at loss to understand and is shocked by the attitude of the learned trial Court and the Presiding Officer sitting over the judgment of this Court who has refused to take on record the amended plaint filed by the petitioner - plaintiff in pursuance of judgment of this Court which allowed the writ petition way back in the year 2005 and after four years of that, while noting the said judgment in first line itself has refused to take on record the amended plaint.
(3.) THE name of the Presiding Officer of Additional Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 1, Chittorgarh is not mentioned in the order, though this Court has directed in several judgments previously that all the Presiding Officers should affix their full seal giving their name and designation. This Court, therefore, allows this writ petition even without notice to the respondents and setting aside the impugned order dtd. 24.11.2009, directs the learned trial Court to take on record the amended plaint immediately.;