1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.183/2009. Karan Chand Jain & Anr. Vs. Madhukar Doshi & Anr. Date of Order : 10th August 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Suresh Shrimali, for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Purohit, for the respondents. ... BY THE COURT: This writ petition filed by this plaintiffs in a suit for declaration and recovery of money, said to be bearing No. 120/2007 and pending in the Court of Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jodhpur, questioning the order dated 27.05.2008 as passed by the learned Trial Court allowing the application filed by the defendants-respondents under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC') and striking out certain averment in the plaint, was entertained by this Court on 20.02.2009; and, by way of interim order, operation and effect of the impugned order was stayed. An application (IA No. 11011/2009) under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India has been moved by the 2 respondents seeking vacation of the stay order and the matter has been placed on board for consideration of the said application. However, during the course of submissions, learned counsel Mr. S.D. Purohit appearing for the respondents submitted on instructions that the defendants-respondents do not want to press on the application as moved by them under Order VI Rule 16 CPC whereupon the impugned order was passed by the learned Trial Court. An application has also been moved on behalf of the respondents supported by the affidavit of the respondent No.1 seeking not to press on the application dated 16.04.2007 as moved under Order VI Rule 16 CPC before the Trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-petitioners has no objection if the defendants-respondents do not press on their application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. Looking to the nature of the suit and the pleadings of the parties, it appears appropriate that the propositions so stated and submissions so made be accepted; and the defendants- respondents be permitted not to press on their application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC. When the said application is not pressed by the defendants-respondents, the obvious result would be that the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 in so far it 3 relates to the said application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC would stand annulled and the questioned averments shall remain on record. In view of the submissions so made, it is also obvious that no purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending any further. Accordingly, while accepting the propositions as stated by the parties, the defendants-respondents are permitted not to press on their application under Order VI Rule 16 CPC; the said application is dismissed as not pressed; and the impugned order dated 27.05.2008, in so far it relates to the said application stands annulled. No further orders are required on the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India that also stands disposed of. To put the record straight, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above without any order as to costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//