PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs: "a) Writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost; and b) Impugned order (Annexure 9) passed by learned District Judge, Udaipur (Raj.) dated 11.08.2017 passed in Civil Case No.215/16 (Kanhaiya Lal v. Gopal Lal) may kindly be set aside; and application of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and purposed amendment may kindly be allowed to be incorporated in the reply. c) during the pendency of this writ petition, further proceedings in the learned Tribunal may kindly be stayed. e) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which is considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) The respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners in the year 2002 for possession of the shops and demanded mesne profit for use and occupation on the premise that the plaintiff was the owner of the same land, which was purchased by him in the year 1976 from Municipal Council, Udaipur.
(3.) The bone of contention in this writ petition is the application under Order 6, Rule 7 CPC, by which, the petitioners have sought the following amendment: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... ;