Sangeet Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against orders dt. 7.5.13 and 18.7.13 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), No. 2, Bhilwara. By order dt. 7.5.13, an application preferred by the respondents -defendants under Sec. 151 CPC has been allowed and vide order dt. 18.7.13, an application preferred by the petitioner -plaintiff under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the aforesaid order dt. 7.5.13, stands rejected. The relevant facts are that in the year 1976, the petitioner -plaintiff preferred a suit for eviction of the respondents -defendants from the suit premises. The eviction is sought inter alia on the ground of default in payment of rent and therefore, the amount of rent due was determined by the trial Court provisionally vide order dt. 31.1.78 in terms of Section 13(3) of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act'). On account of failure of the respondents -defendants in depositing the arrear of rent and monthly rent in terms of order dt. 13.1.78, their defence against the eviction was struck out by the trial Court vide order dt. 25.5.78. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the Appellate Court and thereafter, the revision petition preferred was dismissed by this Court vide order dt. 16.10.80. Thus, the order passed by the trial Court striking out the defence of the respondents -defendants against the eviction has attained finality.
(2.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the respondents -defendants preferred an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC on 19.4.01 seeking leave to amend the written statement. The application preferred was rejected by the Court below vide order dt. 13.07.2001. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents -defendants preferred a revision petition before this Court which was found to be not maintainable. Thereafter, the respondents -defendants preferred a writ petition being No. 6964/03, which was allowed by this Court vide order dt. 23.07.2010, observing that the order passed by the Court below rejecting the application preferred under Order VI Rule 17 suffers from the vice of total non application of mind by the Presiding Officer of the Court. Accordingly, the trial Court was directed to decide the application preferred by the respondents -defendants as aforesaid afresh. After due consideration, the application preferred seeking amendment as aforesaid, was allowed by the trial Court vide order dt. 31.7.12 and the respondents -defendants were permitted to incorporate para No. 26 in the written statement as proposed and submit the amended written statement in terms of Rule 34 of General Rules (Civil), 1986 within the stipulated period.
(3.) IN the meantime, the petitioner -plaintiff had amended the plaint in the year 2004 after leave of the Court and the respondents filed their amended written statement. In the amended written statement filed, the respondents added three paras i.e. para No. 5, 6A & 26, containing new averments. In these circumstances, the petitioner -plaintiff preferred an application under Order VI Rule 16 for striking out the pleadings which was already declined by the Court while rejecting the application preferred seeking leave to amend the written statement. The application preferred by the petitioner -plaintiff as aforesaid was allowed by the trial Court vide order dt. 10.3.05. The order passed by the Court was not challenged by the respondents -defendants and the same attained finality.;