JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2005 whereby the plaintiff-petitioner's application filed under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the plaint, has been rejected by the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since during the pendency of the suit, the defendant had placed a shutter on the shop in question, therefore, the same being the subsequent event happening during the pendency of the suit, which became necessary to be brought on record by amending the plaint itself and same deserves to be allowed as the suit was at the stage of framing of the issues. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the written statement filed by the defendant, they had already said that shutter has been placed on the shop in question. 5. Be that as it may it. It appears that while admitting this writ petition, the further proceedings in Civil Original Suit No. 7/2011 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rajsamand have been stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.01.2006; and the said order is still operating for last five years and the trial has been unnecessarily delayed. Since, the suit was at the stage of framing of issues, which after passing interim order by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court the suit has not progressed. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered expedient that amendment sought by the plaintiff-petitioner in view of subsequent event, ought to have been allowed, which will not adversely affect rights either of the parties. 6. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.05.2005 is set aside and the application under Order 6, Rule 11 CPC is hereby allowed. The interim order dated 02.01.2006 staying the further proceedings is vacated and the trial Court shall proceed hence forth.Petition allowed. *******