SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the order dated 8.3.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Original Case No. 9/2012, whereby, the application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. filed by the defendant-respondents was allowed and the suit filed by the petitioners was rejected.
(2.) At the outset, it would be relevant to mention here that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur on an application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. is challengable by way of an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. and the petitioners have already availed the said remedy by filing S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No. 258/2013, which is pending consideration before this Court.
(3.) The instant writ petition has been preferred with the allegations that the impugned order was passed without providing appropriate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and by making interpolations in the Trial Court's record. Affidavits of the petitioners as well as their Counsel in the Trial Court have been filed in support of these allegations. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that the date fixed before the Trial Court for consideration of the application was 28.2.2013. On that day, as per the learned Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 8.3.2013 and the said date was noted by the petitioners' Counsel in his diary.;