[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Madan Lal vs Legal Representatives Of Late Nand Lal ... on 28 April, 2026
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2026:RJ-JD:20064]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 504/2026
Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal Khatri, Aged About 79 Years, Resident
Of Khatri Colony, Ward No.21, Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Lrs Of Late Nand Lal, Through Lrs.
1/1. Smt. Sarla W/o Ramjimalji (Ramji Lalji) D/o Prahlad Ram,
(Since Deceased Through Lrs.).
1/1/1. Smt. Hansa W/o Ramesh Sevak D/o Shri Prahalad,
Resident Of Chohtan, District Barmer.
1/1/2. Smt. Renuka D/o Prahlad, Resident Of Gandhi Nagar,
Jaisalmer.
1/1/3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,
District Banaskanta, Gujarat.
1/1/4. Raju S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,
District Banaskanta, Gujarat.
1/2. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Shri Ramji Lal,
Resident Of Village Jasol, District Balotra.
1/3. Prem Kumar S/o Kesarimal, Resident Of Village Osiyan, At
Present Nayapura, District Balotra.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5858/2026
Madan Lal S/o Mangi Lal Khatri, Aged About 79 Years, Resident
Of Khatri Colony, Ward No. 21, Dist- Balotra.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Legal Representatives Of Late Nand Lal, Through Lrs.
1/1. Smt. Sarla W/o Ramjimalji (Ramji Lalji) D/o Prahlad Ram,
(Since Deceased Through Lrs).
1/1/1. Smt. Hansa W/o Ramesh Sevak D/o Shri Prahlad,
Resident Of Chohtan, District Barmer.
1/1/2. Smt. Renuka D/o Prahlad, Resident Of Gandhi Nagar,
Jaisalmer.
1/1/3. Mukesh S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:54:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 05:08:02 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20064] (2 of 5) [CW-504/2026]
District Banaskanta, Gujarat.
1/1/4. Raju S/o Prahlad, Resident Of Umiya Nagar, Deesa,
District Banaskanta, Gujarat.
1/2. Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Madan Lal D/o Shri Ramji Lal,
Resident Of Village Jasol, District Balotra.
1/3. Prem Kumar S/o Kesarimal, Resident Of Village Osiyan At
Present Nayapura, District Balotra.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
28/04/2026
1. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the
parties, both the writ petitions have been heard finally, on merits.
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.504/2026 has been filed on behalf
of the appellant-defendant feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his
application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC
vide order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-6) passed during the
course of Civil First Appeal No.49/2016 by learned Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Balotra.
3. Another Writ Petition No.5858/2026 has been filed by
appellant-defendant feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his
application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC,
vide order dated 30.01.2026 by the First Appellate Court viz.
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Balotra in Civil First
Appeal No.49/2016.
4. Learned counsel appearing for both the parties during the
course of arguments ad idem that vide order dated 30.10.2025,
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20064] (3 of 5) [CW-504/2026]
apart from dismissal of application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC,
an another application of petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
was also dismissed whereagainst petitioner preferred S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.21964/2025 before the High Court. High Court
decided the writ petition vide order dated 15.12.2025 and therein
the order impugned dated 30.10.2025 was found to be cryptic
and same was set aside with a direction to decide the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, afresh on merits.
5. Counsel for both parties further pointed out that in
furtherance of the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the High
Court, the Appellate Court has decide the application under Order
6 Rule 17 CPC afresh on 30.01.2026 (Annexure-8), but the
Appellate Court instead of deciding the application under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC which was remanded by High Court for decision
afresh, decided one previous application of petitioner-defendant
filed under the same provision which in fact had already been
disposed of earlier on 04.10.2025.
6. In view of the above, it is explicitly clear that the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant
seeking to amend the written statement in respect of the
subsequent fact, which was remanded by the High Court to be
decided afresh vide order dated 15.12.2025, has not been
decided by the First Appellate Court and the same is yet pending.
7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the respondents, is
fair enough to admit that indeed the application under Order 6
Rule 17 CPC filed by the petitioner-defendant which was
remanded by the High Court, is yet pending and required to be
decided afresh on merits in light of High Court's order dated
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20064] (4 of 5) [CW-504/2026]
15.12.2025, hence, along with that application petitioner's
application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC
filed by the petitioner-defendant may also be directed to be
decided afresh and the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 may be
quashed.
8. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the
respondents, without going into the merits/de-merits, this Court
quash the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure-6) as a whole.
9. It is hereby directed that the Appellate Court shall consider
and decide the pending application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
and the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order
41 Rule 27 CPC simultaneously, afresh on merits, by a speaking
order and in accordance with law.
10. Since the previous application under Order 6 Rule 17 which
has already been disposed of by the First Appellate Court by order
dated 04.10.2025, hence, need not to be decided afresh, and it is
hereby noted that the order dated 30.01.2026 is virtually non-est
in nature and does not prejudice petitioner in any manner.
11. Before parting with, since the regular first appeal against the
decree for eviction is pending from 2016, it is expected that the
First Appellate Court shall first consider and decide the application
under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and application under Order 41 Rule
17 CPC afresh on merits preferably within a period of three
months and thereafter shall proceed to decide the first appeal as
early as possible.
12. With the aforesaid observation, both writ petitions stand
disposed of.
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:54:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20064] (5 of 5) [CW-504/2026]
13. Stay application and all pending application(s) if any, stand
disposed of.
14. A copy of this order be sent to the Additional District Judge,
Balotra.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
4-amit/-
(Uploaded on 28/04/2026 at 01:54:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
