Bela M.Trivedi, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 03/08/2012 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 5, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 110 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners -defendants seeking amendment in the written statement, and requesting the Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, and perusing the documents on record, more particularly the contentions raised by the petitioners -defendants in para No. 5 of the written statement, and the proposed amendment sought by the petitioners in the application filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, it appears that the petitioners had already taken up the contention with regard to the jurisdiction in the said para, and by way of the proposed amendment, the petitioners had sought to elaborate the said contentions of jurisdiction in view of the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). It is pertinent to note that the Trial Court has also framed the issue No. 17, in that regard, which reads as under: - -
(2.) THE learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the petitioners, however, has submitted that in view of the subsequent event i.e. the evidence led on behalf of the respondents -plaintiffs, the contention raised by the petitioners in the written statement with regard to the jurisdiction was further fortified, and therefore the amendment in the written statement was proposed, which as such did not change the nature of defence taken in the written -statement. The said submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the contention of jurisdiction has already been taken by the petitioners in the written statement, and the Court has also framed the issue in that regard. Hence there was no need to amend the written statement elaborating the contention of jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the petitioners for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC also cannot be accepted as admittedly the plaintiffs' side evidence has already been completed, and the suit is fixed for the evidence of the petitioners -defendants. It cannot be gainsaid that the request for deciding the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue has to be made by the concerned party, before the evidence has started in the suit. Under the circumstances, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. However, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is directed that the Trial Court shall decide the issue of jurisdiction in view of all the contentions that may be raised by the petitioners in the light of the provisions contained in the said Act, and the same shall not be limited to the contentions raised in para No. 5 of the written statement. In that view of the matter, and with the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed.;