1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1140/08 Sedu Ram vs. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar & Ors. Date of order : 8/2/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Anoop Dhand for the petitioner. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.11.2007, whereby the learned trial court had declined the prayer of the petitioner to amend his plaint which according to the petitioner was based on subsequent developments. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned trial court erred in law in refusing the desired amendments on the ground that by the earlier order the similar prayer for amendment was declined. Learned counsel submits that earlier order dated 7.3.2005 was subjected to challenge by the petitioner in the writ petition and this Court though rejected the writ petition vide 2 judgment dated 13.5.05 but in the subsequent order dated 26.10.2005 clarified the same that petitioner would be at liberty to state his case before the court below. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the impugned order and the other material forming part of the record, I find that the amendments to the same effect were prayed for by the petitioner in earlier writ petitioner when the learned trial court refused the same vide its order dated 7.3.2006. The said order was upheld by this Court in its judgment dated 13.5.2005 though it was observed that if the petitioner considers that the defendant-respondents have sought to alienate the property to the third party in spite of the injunction order to the contrary passed by the Court, he would have remedy before the court below by initiating the proceedings of contempt against the defendants. The clarification order thus does not make the case of the petitioner much better. All that has been said in the clarification order is if the defendants 3 seek to alienate the disputed property in spite of the order of the stay, its effect shall be considered by the trial court. In substance therefore the earlier order rejecting the application of the petitioner remained undisturbed. In that view of the matter, the application for amendment to the same effect could not have been granted by the trial court. The trial court in my opinion has not committed any error of law in rejecting the application. The writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/