JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of order dated 08.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (J.D) cum Judicial Magistrate, Nathdwara. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a suit filed by respondent plaintiff for injunction, written statement was filed by petitioner defendant. The trial court passed an order for maintaining status quo but inspite of that, the respondent plaintiff raised the construction of wall, therefore, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the petitioner with the prayer was made by the petitioner that during pendency of the suit, the plaintiff respondent raised construction of wall therefore, it is required to be demolished and position which was in existence shall be restored. 4. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, learned trial court rejected the said application on the ground that although an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been filed by the petitioner but in fact it is counter claim which cannot be permitted as per the law. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the presumption of trial court is not correct because petitioner defendant filed an application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC to take subsequent fact on record, therefore, order impugned may be quashed and application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC may be allowed. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards following judgments:- (1) 1997 (8) JT 228 , Smt. Shanti v. Dinesh (2) WLC SC 2002 797 (3) DNJ 2008 (2) Raj 589 5. While citing above judgments, counsel for the petitioner submits that by way of filing application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in written statement even counterclaim can be filed by the petitioner defendant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent plaintiff submits that if any violation of interim order is made by respondent plaintiff, then petitioner is required to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. 6. Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of respondent plaintiff submits that if any violation of interim order is made by respondent plaintiff, then petitioner is required to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Further it is submitted that by way of amendment application, the petitioner defendant is seeking decree by way of counter-claim which is not permissible under the law and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are based upon altogether different facts, therefore, order impugned does not require any interference. 7. Further it is submitted that by way of amendment application, the petitioner defendant is seeking decree by way of counter-claim which is not permissible under the law and the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are based upon altogether different facts, therefore, order impugned does not require any interference. 7. As per pleading, it is admitted position of the case that in a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff a written statement was filed by the defendant and after filing written statement, it appeared that respondent plaintiff raised construction of wall, therefore, it was felt necessary by the petitioner to file an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC in which following assertion was made in para no.2 of the application for amendment of written statement:- " ;g fd mDr fu"ks/kkKk dh vkM esa oknh&izkFkhZ Lo;a us Hkw[k.M ds okLrfod Lo:i esa ifjorZu dj fn;k] D;ksafd izfroknh&foi{kh ds fo:) vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh Fkh] og fooknxzLr lEifRr esa izos'k ugha dj ldrk FkkA bl dkj.k izkFkhZ&oknh us oknxzLr lEifr ij dejs fufeZr djus vkjEHk dj fn;s vkSj okn is'k djus ds fnu tks Hkw[k.M dk Lo:i Fkk] mls u"V dj fn;k vkSj ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ls tks dfe'uj tkjh gqvk vkSj ftUgksaus LFky&izfrosnu fnukad 28-7-1998 dks fufeZr fd;k] mlesa Hkh ifjorZu dj fn;kA bl izdkj oknh ds mDr d`R; ls izfroknh&foi{kh vius tokc&nkos ds in la0 10 ds vkxs in la0 11 ds :i esa fuEukafdr la'kks/ku djuk pkgrk gS fd " izfroknh oknxzLr lEifRr dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa fufgr ugha gSa] ds vf/kdkj dks lqjf{kr j[krs gq,] oknh }kjk oknxzLr lEifRr dks Hkw[k.M n'kkZrs gq, vius Hkw[k.M esa fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ n[kyankth izfroknh ugha djs] ,slh nkn pkgh gS] tcfd oknh us okn dh vkM+ esa okn izLrqr djus ds mijkar izfroknh dh lEifRr ij oknxzLr Hkw[k.M ds Lo:i esa ifjorZu dj ml ij fuekZ.k dj jgk gS] ftl gsrq izfroknh vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk }kjk oknh }kjk fd;s tk jgs fuekZ.k dk;Z dks gVk;k tkdj okn is'k djus ds fnu dh fLFkfr dks dk;e fd;k tkuk vko';d gks x;k gS vkSj bl gsrq og oknh ds fo:) vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA " I have perused para 2 of the application as well as the order passed by the trial court. Admittedly, an application was filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC but on perusal of above para it emerges that in the amendment application, petitioner is not only making prayer of amendment in written statmeent but also claiming mandatory injunction, therefore, obviously, it is a counter claim which cannot be filed for the simple reason that said fact came into the existence after filing suit and for that counter claim is not permissible. In this case, the main emphasis of the petitioner is that respondent plaintiff contravened the order passed by the trial court for maintaining status quo, therefore obviously petitioner is required to file an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC but neither an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC nor any counter claim has been filed but petitioner is raising voice to take certain facts on record which came into existence during pendency of the suit which is not permissible. 8. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, if petitioner still feels that there is intervention in the order passed by the trial court for maintaining status quo, then petitioner is free to file application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******