RAMESH KUMAR Vs. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), SIROHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is listed in the 'Orders' category, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally today itself. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dtd. 23/8/2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 16 and under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. were rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-defendant is the son of the respondent-plaintiff- Smt. Magi Bai, who preferred a suit against him for eviction from the suit premises. She submits that after filing the written statement by the petitioner, the issues were framed. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner-defendant which was taken on record by the trial Court and since the rejoinder was taken on record, the nature of the suit was changed. She submits that in this view of the matter, the Issue Nos. 1 & 2 framed by the learned trial Court are required to be amended/deleted. She further submits that there was no need of framing Issue Nos. 1 & 2 as the same are based on the admitted facts and the same will enlarge the scope of the suit. She, therefore, submits that the present writ petition may be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court dtd. 23/8/2011 may be quashed and Issue Nos. 1 & 2 framed by the learned trial Court may be amended/deleted.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a bare perusal of Issue Nos. 1 & 2 will show that no prejudice was caused by framing such issues, rather finding on Issue Nos. 1 & 2 will clarify the entire situation and since they are based on the facts involved in the present case, therefore, the same should not be amended/deleted. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant along with an application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 C.P.C. The learned trial Court rejected the objections raised by the petitioner-defendant and allowed the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. taking the rejoinder filed by the respondent-plaintiff on record. The order dtd. 24/10/2008 has become final as the same was not challenged before any other court. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23/8/2011.