R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order dt. 31.07.2013 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, No. 16, Metropolitan City, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the petitioners' application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that since an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC had been filed on the ground that there is transfer of property, which is hit by Section 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, the learned Judge ought to have heard and decided the application on merits. However, the learned Judge had not done so. Without applying his mind, the learned Judge has dismissed the application.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has not dismissed the petitioners' application. He has merely observed that since the case is poised at the stage of final arguments, the contentions raised by the learned counsel in the application can equally be raised at the time of final arguments. Therefore, he will consider their application while considering the final arguments on the merits of the case. Thus, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.;