Rajasthan High Court
CW/16300/2025 of SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O LATE SH. TULSIRAM JI SHARMA Vs SH. SANDYA PANCHAYAT DHARMSHALA on 13 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16300/2025 CNR: RJHC020836462025 | URN: CW / 37126U / 2025 Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Tulsiram Ji Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Ward Brijrajpura Indra Market, Near Gyan Bharti School, Sanadya Bhawan (Hostel)
[2026:RJ-JP:32016]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16300/2025
CNR: RJHC020836462025 | URN: CW / 37126U / 2025
Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Late Sh. Tulsiram Ji Sharma, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Ward Brijrajpura Indra Market, Near Gyan Bharti School, Sanadya Bhawan (Hostel) Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
Sh. Sandya Panchayat Dharmshala, Through President Sh. Ashvani Sharma Office Shakti Market Shreepura Kota (Raj.)
2.
Secretary, Shri Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.
Kanhaiyalal Sharma, Resident Of 17/168 Gandhi Ji Ki Pule, Brijrajpura Kota (Raj.)
3.
Station House Officer, Police Station Makbara, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Manoj Prajapat for
Mr. Mukesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
13/08/2026
1. Instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by and on behalf of plaintiff, feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2025, dismissing his application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and declining to add the prayer of mandatory injunction in the Civil Suit No.297/2019 pending before the Court of Additional Civil Judge No.2 (North) Kota.
2. At the outset, plaintiff instituted plaint on 01.05.2019, wherein the prayer was made only for seeking prohibitory injunction along with a declaration, but plaintiff in the subject matter of suit, erroneously indicated the nature of civil suit as
[2026:RJ-JP:32016] (2 of 2) [CW-16300/2025] prohibitory and mandatory injunction. Showing this nomenclature is misleading the Court.
3. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 on 30.09.2024 stating inter alia that way back on 07.05.2019 behind his back, locks of two rooms were broken by the defendant, hence, he prayed to amend and add para No.9-A in the plaint, seeking a prayer of mandatory injunction. This application has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 13.08.2025 on the ground that the prayer for mandatory injunction sought to be added, is barred by limitation being made beyond the period of limitation of three years.
4. This Court does not find any manifest illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order nor the impugned order leads to any miscarriage of justice, hence, same does not warrant any interference.
5. Before parting with, this Court want to express its anguish on the conduct of plaintiff who in the original plaint and in subject matter of plaint indicated "
वाेआदेशाकएवंआ
ाक
ायीनिषेधा
ा", whereas in the prayer clause of plaint, there was no relief for any mandatory injunction. The trial Court may take on such mischievous conduct of plaintiff and may take appropriate action.
6. Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, instant writ petition stands dismissed.
7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
8. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, forthwith. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 9/RONAK JAIMAN