-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11460 of 2009 Jagdish Prasad son of Shri Bhura Ram VERSUS Civil Judge (S.D.) & J.M. Neem-ka-thana, Sikar & Others Date of Order :::: March 16th 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Ms. Gayatri Rathore, Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Counsel for the Respondents *** By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has confined this writ petition to challenge the order Annexure-3 dated 22.05.2009 by which the application for amendment filed under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. by the plaintiff-petitioner was rejected. I have perused the application, wherein the amendment has been sought, as has been stated in Para No.4 of the application. I have also seen the reply to the said application and the order impugned dated 22.05.2009 (Annexure-3). The learned trial Court while deciding the said application has proceeded to decide the application primarily considering the provisions contained in the proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. -2- During the course of hearing, it was not disputed that the present suit was instituted prior to the amendment and the provisions inserted by way of proviso to Rule 17 of Order 6 C.P.C. as introduced by the amendment of 2002 in the C.P.C. and which has been held to be prospective in nature and not applicable to suits instituted prior to the amendment. In the light of the above, as also the fact that the amendment sought is primarily with regard to the relief regarding which necessary averments have already been made in the plaint and the issue with regard to prior partition has also been framed as admitted by the learned counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- petitioner submitted that as a consequence of the amendment to the relief claimed in the plaint being allowed the plaintiff- petitioner would not be required to lead any additional evidence in support of amended portion of the plaint and the trial would not be prolonged on that account. In view of the above, I am inclined to accept this writ petition, the same is allowed. The impugned order Annexure-3 dated 22.05.2009 is set aside. It may also be mentioned here that against the impugned order the plaintiff-petitioner had also preferred an application by way of review before the learned trial Court, which was rejected by the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure-10) with costs. -3- In view of the fact that the impugned order Annexure-3 dated 22.05.2009 has been set aside, the order Annexure-10 dated 04.08.2009 is also set aside. The amendment, as prayed for is allowed. The amended plaint shall be filed on the next date, already fixed if not already filed and the copy of the same be furnished to the learned counsel for the defendant. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that while rejecting the review application vide order Annexure-10 dated 04.08.2009 costs of Rs.500/- had been imposed upon the plaintiff-petitioner. Since, the writ petition against the Annexure-3 dated 22.05.2009 has been allowed and the impugned orders Annexure-3 and Annexure-10 have been set aside, the order of costs is also set aside. The writ petition stands disposed of as above. (Dalip Singh), J. Ashok/