ORDER : 1. Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by Civil Judge Nagaur in Civil Suit No. 11/2016 vide which the application under Order 6 Rule 17 filed by the plaintiff was allowed. 2. It is contended by counsel for the defendant-petitioner that the suit was basically for declaration and the removal of the part of the relief clause has changed the nature of suit. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that three suits were filed by the plaintiff out of which one suit has been rejected under Order 7 Rule 11. The plaintiff after rejection of one of his suit has sought to amend the relief clause only to adversely affect the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 3. I have considered the arguments put-forth by counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the application moved by the plaintiff, the pleadings in the plaint and the impugned order vide which the court has directed removal of line 1 to 3 of the relief clause Para 10(a). 4. The suit herein was filed with the relief for declaration of Khasra No. 57 as property of the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 to 3. The other part of the relief was for cancellation of the gift deed dated 25.10.2010. By means of the present application, the petitioner seeks to amend his relief clause and is now confining his relief only to the extent of declaration of the gift deed as null and void. 5. The application under Order 6 Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC was filed by the plaintiff on 16.09.2016, thereafter application under Order 7 Rule Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner on 29.09.2016. 6. The plaintiff in the present case seeks to confine the relief only to the declaration of the gift deed as null and void and merely because the petitioner has after filing of the application, moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint, plaintiff cannot be denied the right to amend his relief clause. The court below has allowed the application after considering all the arguments which have been raised. There is no illegality in the impugned order so as to exercise the writ jurisdiction. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.