R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) IN pursuance of the public notice issued by this Court inviting the litigants to appear before the Court in order to plead their case in the absence of their counsel, as the learned members of the Bar are on strike, Mr. Mahesh Chand appears before this Court.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 3.7.2013 whereby Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) & Metropolitan Magistrate -East, Jaipur Metropolitan, had accepted an application filed by respondent No. 2 and his legal representatives under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC, and, on the other hand, has rejected an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioners. It is pertinent to point out that before passing of this order this Court had specifically asked Mr. Mahesh Chand whether he would like to argue the case, or he would like to seek an adjournment as the learned members of the Bar are abstaining from work? He clearly informed this Court that he would like to argue the case. Therefore, this Court has heard his pleas at length.
(3.) MR . Mahesh Chand has raised the following pleas before this court: with regard to the application submitted by the respondent which has been accepted by the learned Magistrate, he has pleaded that the application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC was submitted beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, it should not have been accepted at all. Moreover, the facts mentioned in the application were known to the respondent when he had filed his written -statement. Therefore, the learned Judge has erred in giving the respondent a chance to amend the written -statement by the impugned order.;