ORDER : 1. The case is listed in the ‘Orders’ category, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being heard and decided finally today itself. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sirohi (hereinafter referred to as “the trial Court”), whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 16 and under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 C.P.C. were rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-defendant is the son of the respondent-plaintiff-Smt. Magi Bai, who preferred a suit against him for eviction from the suit premises. She submits that after filing the written statement by the petitioner, the issues were framed. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner-defendant which was taken on record by the trial Court and since the rejoinder was taken on record, the nature of the suit was changed. She submits that in this view of the matter, the Issue Nos. 1 & 2 framed by the learned trial Court are required to be amended/deleted. She further submits that there was no need of framing Issue Nos. 1 & 2 as the same are based on the admitted facts and the same will enlarge the scope of the suit. She, therefore, submits that the present writ petition may be allowed and the order passed by the trial Court dated 23.08.2011 may be quashed and Issue Nos. 1 & 2 framed by the learned trial Court may be amended/deleted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a bare perusal of Issue Nos. 1 & 2 will show that no prejudice was caused by framing such issues, rather finding on Issue Nos. 1 & 2 will clarify the entire situation and since they are based on the facts involved in the present case, therefore, the same should not be amended/deleted. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the petitioner-defendant along with an application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The learned trial Court rejected the objections raised by the petitioner-defendant and allowed the application preferred under Order 8 Rule 9 of C.P.C. taking the rejoinder filed by the respondent-plaintiff on record. The order dated 24.10.2008 has become final as the same was not challenged before any other court. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.08.2011. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 6. The respondent-plaintiff, who is the mother of the petitioner-defendant, filed the suit for his eviction. The trial Court based on the pleadings framed the issues, more particularly, Issue Nos. 1 & 2. For better appreciation of the facts, the Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are reproduced hereunder :- ^^fook|d ¼1½ vk;k oknhuh us fnuakd 30-11-1992 dks fookfnr ifjlj Ø; fd;k] ml le; igyh eafty ij ,d dejk cuk gqvk Fkk vkSj [kjhn ds ckn nks dejs] ysVªhu ckFk:e fufeZr fd;s ftldh jftLVªh oknhuh o izfroknh ds uke djokbZ xbZ \ ------oknh;k ¼2½ vk;k edku dk caVokMk tckuh oknhuh o izfroknh ds e/; gqvk Fkk vkSj ftlesa xzkm.M yksj esa oknhuh o mlds ifr dk dkj[kkuk esa MkbZ dfVax dk dk;Z dj jgs Fks tks oknhuh us vius ikl j[kk vkSj izFke eafty ij fuekZ.k dk;Z dj izfroknh ds fgLls esa fn;k\ --------oknh;k^^ 7. A bare perusal of the Issue Nos. 1 & 2 goes to show that they are in conformity of the pleadings made before the trial Court. If the issues framed are based on the pleadings and even if they are based on admitted facts, then this Court finds that no prejudice will be caused to the petitioner. It is also noted that the learned trial Court after having discussed the matter in the entirety, rightly came to the conclusion that the objections to the rejoinder filed by the petitioner-defendant were rejected vide order dated 24.10.2008 and once the rejoinder is ordered to be placed on record, the same will be taken into consideration while deciding the issues framed in the case. 8. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 16 & Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 9. 8. Therefore, learned trial Court rightly rejected the applications preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 16 & Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 9. It is also noted that the trial Court while giving elaborate reasons decided the applications of the petitioner-defendant and for brevity, the conclusion reached by the trial Court is also reproduced hereunder:- ^^7-&fo}ku vf/koDrk izfroknh us lEiw.kZ nkos] lEiw.kZ tokcnkos] tokcqy tokc dh ,d ,d iafDr i 10. This court finds that since no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by framing of Issue Nos. 1 & 2, more particularly, when the application preferred by the respondent-plaintiff under Order 8 Rule 9 for taking the rejoinder on record has been allowed vide order dated 24.10.2008, then an attempt to undo the effect of the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.10.2008 is impermissible in the law. 11. In view of the discussions made above, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.08.2011 does not warrant any interference by this Court and the writ petition having no force, is hereby dismissed. 12. Since the suit proceedings are pending before the learned trial Court since 2007, the learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings and conclude the same at its earliest convenience. 13. The stay petition and other pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.