IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5943/2008 Smt. Rajan Devi & Ors. Vs. Trust Mandir Shri Murli Manoharji & Ors. 13.10.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri G.K. Garg, for the petitioners. Shri Rajendra Prasad for the respondents. The matter comes up on the application filed by the petitioners for dispensing with the service upon the unserved respondents for the purpose of admission. The said application is allowed. The writ petition on the request of the learned counsel for the parties was heard for admission. The defendant petitioners has challenged the order dated 22.5.2008 (Annexure-1) by which the application filed under order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. dated 31.7.2007 for an amendment in the written statement has been dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The amendment which has been sought is in respect of the challenge to the registration of the plaintiff's Trust by the defendant petitioners. The defendants contend that the Commissioner Devsthan Department has vide its judgment and order dated 25.6.2007 set aside the registration of the Trust in appeal and this fact was sought to be introduced in the written statement. The plaintiffs on the other hand submit that the aforesaid fact was within the knowledge of the defendants regarding registration of the Trust and all averments in that behalf could have been made in the written statement itself. The reliance was also produced proviso to order 6 rule 17 C.P.C. and contended that the application was aimed only to delay the proceedings as the amendment was sought at a late stage. I find from the impugned order that the learned trial court has taken care to protect the interest of both the parties while holding that the defendant is permitted to raise his submission on the basis of the order of the Commissioner, Devsthan dated 25.6.2007 by which the registration of the plaintiff's Trust has been set aside and that the notice of the said order shall be taken note of by the court. Learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute the right of the petitioner to make his submission on the basis of the above facts while contesting the suit. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the order dated 25,6,2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, Devsthan has been challenged by the petitioner before this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6763/2007 in which the interim order has been passed on 31.8.2007 by which the operation of the order passed by the Commissioner Devsthan has been stayed by this court. This fact however, is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the defendant petitioners who submits that there is no such interim order passed by this court nor has the same been produced. So far as this dispute is concerned the matter would be appreciated by the learned trial court while hearing the case on merits and it would be open for the parties to produce the relevant material before the learned trial court in support of their respective contentions. Since the learned trial court has taken the note of the above facts and protected the interest of both the parties while passing the impugned order. I find no good reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS