- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners- defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendants') against the order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Court No. 11 Jaipur in Civil suit No. 125/2012, whereby the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 has been dismissed.
(2.) Facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 to 9- plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiffs') filed a suit for Osra, settlement of account, partition of the property and permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. On receipt of summons, the defendants put in appearance and filed the written statement as also the counter claim. During the pendency of the writ petition, the defendants filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement. The plaintiffs filed a reply thereto. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court, vide its order date 1.11.2018, dismissed the defendants' application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants submits that Govind Das, through whom the plaintiffs no. 2 to 9 are claiming their rights, filed a suit titled Mahant Govind Das Chela Laxman Dass, Mahant Mandir Sita Ram Ji, Amer Road, Jaipur Versus Ram Sharan before Addl. Munsiff Magistrate No.1, Jaipur. In the said suit, on 21.3.2018, a compromise was arrived at between the plaintiffs no. 2 to 9 and defendant in the Lok Adalat in regard to temple Sitaram Ji, Amer Road, Jaipur. Based thereupon, a compromise decree was passed, which was subsequently confirmed vide judgment and decree dated 22.4.2018. Learned counsel further submits that from the aforesaid decree, it was amply clear that the plaintiffs had no concerned with the temple of Thakur Sita Ram Ji situated at Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. In this view of the matter, for effective adjudication of the controversy involved in the matter, the amendment sought for, was required to be allowed. 3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments: I) State Bank of Hyderabad Versus Municipal Corporation (2007) 1 SCC 765 II) Baldev Singh Versus Manohar Singh (2006) 6 SCC 498 Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs supported the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper.;