IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9212/2007 Smt. Kalawati & Anr. Vs. Civil Judge (JD) 11.9.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Vinodi Lal Mathur, for the petitioner. Shri Prasant Chahar, for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined this writ petition to the order dated 4.8.2007 only by which the application filed by the plaintiff petitioner under order 11 rule 1 of the C.P.C. has been dismissed. The plaintiff petitioner alleged in the application that the defendant has suppressed the material fact in the written statement and have not come with clean hands before the court and as such it is necessary that interrogatory be served upon the defendant and they may be directed to answer the same. The suit which has been filed by the plaintiff is one for permanent injunction in respect of the residential house marked ABCD in the site plan filed along with plaint and the prayer is that the defendant be restrained not to transfer the same in favour of any 3rd party. The other prayer is in respect of the open land marked as CDEF in the site plan with the prayer that the defendant be restrained not to interfere with the peaceful of enjoyment of the said property marked as CDEF by the plaintiff. As similar prayer has been made in respect of property marked as ABCD and CDEF that the defendant No. 5 and 6 be restrained not registered the sale deed in favour of 1 to 4 or any other person. I have perused the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. The trial court has come to the conclusion that th application is vague inasmuch as no particular of the said material facts which have been suppressed have been given nor how the defendant has not come with the clean hands have been disclosed. The interrogatory which have been filed as per the learned counsel for the petitioner were necessary for ascertaining the location of the land in dispute and its boundaries. So far as the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned I am of the view that the plaintiff petitioner will have to succeed on the basis of his own case and since the petitioner plaintiff has described the property in the plaint as ABCD and CDEF as marked in the site plan, the suit has been confined to the aforesaid property marked as ABCD and CDEF as described in the site plan attached with the plaint. In that view of the matter I am of the view that the application filed by the petitioner plaintiff does not under merit any consideration and the writ petition filed in respect of the dismissal of the application under order 11 rule 1 CPC does not calls for any interference. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not press the writ petition in respect of the impugned order dated 27.1.2007 by which the application dated 7.11.2006 for the appointment of the Commissioner has been dismissed. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed summarily. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS