Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) PETITIONERS have filed this writ petition for setting aside the order dated 23.03.2013 passed by the District Judge, Sikar, in Suit No. 162/2012 (BT No. 143/13). Further prayer is made for a direction to the court below to grant one last opportunity to defendant -petitioners for filing written statement. Plaintiff -respondent on 25.07.2012 filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act against defendant -petitioners in the court of District Judge, Sikar, along -with the application for temporary injunction. The defendant -petitioners, after receiving summons, put appearance through counsel on 09.08.2012. Thereafter, the plaintiff -respondent submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC. It is stated that the plaintiff -respondent has no concern with the property in question, which belongs to the defendant -petitioners. On 05.01.2013 the petitioners sought time to file reply to the application and they were granted time up to 23.03.2013. They could not submit the reply and written statement on 23.03.2013. Learned court below closed the opportunity for filing written statement. Petitioners submitted an application before the court below in the month of November, 2013 for granting opportunity to file reply and written statement but the court below refused to take the said application on record. Hence this writ petition.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for plaintiff -respondent opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioners filed the application on 02.01.2014 praying for grant of opportunity to file written statement and the court below vide order dated 07.01.2014 granted one opportunity to petitioner to produce the evidence on payment of costs of Rs. 2000/ - and fixed the matter on 18.01.2014. Having heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material on record, I am of the view that the petitioners ought to have been granted one more opportunity to file the written statement. The petitioner No. 1 submitted the application under Right to Information Act and the Gram Panchayat, Rewasa, furnished the information that no patta was issued by the Gram Panchayat to late Prem Sukh, father of plaintiff -respondent. It was thereafter that on 25.10.2012 the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment of the suit, and on 05.01.2013 the petitioners sought time for filing reply thereto and written statement but could not file the reply and written statement on 23.03.2013 and the court below on 23.03.2013 itself closed the opportunity to file written statement. Petitioners submitted application before the court below on 02.01.2014 for grant of opportunity to file written statement, but the court below did not pass any order with regard to grant of opportunity to file written statement and only permitted the defendant -petitioners to adduce evidence on payment of costs of Rs. 2000/ -.
(3.) IN view of above, writ petition is disposed of with direction to the court below to permit the defendant -petitioners to file written statement within a period of a fortnight from the date next fixed before it on payment of costs of Rs. 1000/ - to the plaintiff -respondent and on that basis the learned court below shall permit the defendant -petitioners to adduce their evidence, which shall be concluded within a period of three months from the date of filing of the written statement. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. This also disposes of stay application.;