ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 21.11.2013 (Annexure-7) passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 5, Udaipur in Civil Case No. 91/2013 whereby, the application preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. was rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is landlord and had preferred a suit for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. 4. During the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court, an application was preferred by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for amendment in the prayer clause to the effect that an additional prayer to be added in the suit in the following terms :- ^^iSjk&vk ^^ fd okfn;k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djk lqiqnZ fd;k tkus dh fMØh ikfjr QjekbZ tkosaA^^ 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that technically the prayer for handing over the vacant possession of the suit premises was not made, therefore, the prayer clause of the suit may be amended. He, therefore, prays that the order dated 21.11.2013 may be quashed and set-aside and prayer " vk " made in the application which is reproduced hereinabove may be added in the prayer clause of the suit. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the logical conclusion of seeking prayer "l" in the prayer clause of the suit sufficiently indicates that prayer for eviction is sought for as the prayer "l" can only be granted after the prayer for eviction is sought for from the suit premises. Therefore, no further amendment in the prayer clause is warranted and he, therefore, prays that the writ petition is baseless and should be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the order impugned dated 21.11.2013 as well as other relevant record of the case. For better appreciation of the facts in the present case, prayer "l" made in the suit is reproduced as under : - 8. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the order impugned dated 21.11.2013 as well as other relevant record of the case. For better appreciation of the facts in the present case, prayer "l" made in the suit is reproduced as under : - 8. A bare perusal of the prayer "l" shows that the petitioner has prayed for grant of Rs.10,000/- as an amount of rent from the date of filing the application till the vacant possession of the suit premises is given to the petitioner. 9. Such prayer impliedly includes the prayer for eviction of the suit premises as an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be paid from the filing of the suit till the vacant possession of the suit premises is granted, indicates that the prayer for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises is implicit. However, shorn of technicalities, the petitioner has preferred an application for addition of the prayer to the effect that vacant possession of the suit property may be handed-over to the petitioner by way of filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. 10. In the opinion of this Court, the addition of such prayer by way of amendment should have been granted by the learned trial Court and the application has wrongly been rejected by the learned trial Court by passing the order dated 21.11.2013. The addition of such prayer will only clarify the prayer clause of the petitioner without any prejudice to the respondent. 11. In view of the discussion made above, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated 21.11.2013 passed by the learned trial Court is quashed and set-aside and the application preferred by the applicant under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. is allowed and following prayer is ordered to be added in the prayer clause of the suit :- ^^iSjk&vk ^^ fd okfn;k ds i{k esa ,oa izfroknh ds fo:) oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djk lqiqnZ fd;k tkus dh fMØh ikfjr QjekbZ tkosaA^^