Dismissed

Mohan Das and Ors. v. a D J and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2014CW/12612/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants filed a writ petition seeking permission to amend pleadings to introduce evidence that landlords had indicated the premises were no longer required. The High Court dismissed the plea, directing the trial appellate court to decide the appeal within three months without waiting for amendment. A copy of the order be sent to the courts below immediately.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to amend pleadings dismissed; appellate court directed to decide appeal within three months.

Mohan Das and Ors. Vs a D J and Ors. — Partition | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12612/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

Mohan Das through vs. Addl. District Judge No.6, His Legal Representative Jaipur Metro, Jaipur and & anr. ors.

¶6

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12612/2013 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by Addl. District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur in CRA No.17/2010.

¶7

Date of Order: 13.11.2014.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. ATUL KUMAR JAIN,J.

¶9

Ms. Anita Khandelwal for the petitioners. Mr. Praveen Jain, for the non-petitioners.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

The petitioners are tenants and the legal representatives of non-petitioner no.2 are landlords of the suit premises. A decree of eviction from the suit premises was passed by the trial court against the petitioners-tenants. Then the tenants filed appeal in the court of Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. During the hearing of appeal, an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenants to bring the subsequent events on record but that application was dismissed by order dated 17.5.2012 in CRA No. 17/2010 by Additional District Judge No.6, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. That order was challenged by the petitioners in the High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 9189/2012 which was decided by this Court on 2.7.2012 in the following terms:-

¶12

“After making submissions for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he

¶13

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12612/2013

¶14

¶15

may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition so as to file affidavits of two persons in whose presence the landlord had made statement with regard to the fact that the suit premises is no more required for his own purpose. Therefore, in view of above, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.”

¶16

After the order was passed on 2.7.2012 by this Court, the petitioners-tenants submitted two affidavits of their witnesses in the trial court and in reply to these two affidavits, other party has also filed two counter affidavits in the trial court. The application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by the tenants was dismissed on 22.5.2013 by the trial court and the trial court refused to review its order dated 17.5.2012.

¶17

In this writ petition, it has been argued by the tenants petitioners that unless the subsequent events are taken on record and they are allowed to amend their pleadings in this regard, the subsequent events will not be considered by the trial court. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the non-petitionerslandlords that in pursuance of the order dated 2.7.2012 of this Court, the petitioners have been permitted to file affidavits of their two witnesses in the appellate court and the appellate court has also permitted the landlords also to file their counter affidavits. In the circumstances of the case, it has been argued on behalf of the nonpetitioners-landlords that when the appellate court has already considered the subsequent events in the right perspective and opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of both the parties have already been given by the appellate court to the opponents, then no purpose will be served if the tenants are allowed to amend their pleadings and that way the tenants may try to delay the disposal of

¶18

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 12612/2013

¶19

¶20

the suit.

¶21

In the circumstances of the case, this writ petition filed by the tenants has no substance and prayer for amendment of the pleadings made by the petitioners is hereby dismissed, but it also hereby ordered that a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine all the additional witnesses by the opposite party should be given by the appellate court and if it has already been given, then the appellate court should proceed further without waiting for any amendment in the pleadings by the tenants.

¶22

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. The stay petition also stands dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the courts below immediately. The appellate court is also directed that the appeal should be decided preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶23

( ATUL KUMAR JAIN),J.

¶24

mlt.

Mohan Das and Ors. v. a D J and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Das and Ors. v. a D J and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhinya Ram Vs Girdhari Lal and Ors.

Nagar Mal Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Kishore Kumar Vs Smt.Kalpana and Others

Imran Vs Civil Judge S D and Ors.

Smt Rameshwari Devi Vs Girdhari Lal

Kishan Lal Meena and Others Vs Gyan Chan Alias Gyana