Dismissed

Shrikrishna Kumar v. Gram Nyayalaya,Bikaner and Anr.

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2018CW/3938/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of applications to exclude pleadings under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act in an eviction suit filed under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The High Court dismissed the writ, holding no prejudice as the issues were framed and rights preserved for final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's applications to strike out pleadings under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act were rejected; writ petition dismissed.

Shrikrishna Kumar Vs Gram Nyayalaya,Bikaner and Anr. — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4028 / 2017

¶3

Phoosa Ram, Son of Shri Mohan Lal, By Caste Soni, Resident of Near Old Post Office, Napasar, District Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gram Nyayalaya, Bikaner.

¶7

Brijratan, Son of Shri Liladhar, By Caste Moondhra, Resident of Near Old Post Office, Napasar, District Bikaner.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3938 / 2017

¶11

Shrikrishna Kumar S/o. Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste - Kumhar, R/o. Near Old Post Office, Napasar, District - Bikaner.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Gram Nyayalaya, Bikaner

¶15

Brijratan, Son of ShriLiladhar, By Caste Moondhra, Resident of Near Old Post Office, Napasar, District Bikaner.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Thanvi

¶18

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari

¶19

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order

¶20

25/04/2018

¶21

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :-

¶22

“a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 (Annex.7) passed by learned Gram Nayalaya, Bikaner in Case No.14/2016 may kindly be quashed

(2 of 4)

[CW-4028/2017]

and set aside.

b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC (Annex.4) and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC (Annex.5) may kindly be allowed and the learned Tribunal may kindly be directed to struck out unnecessary and irrelevant pleadings in the plaint and also unnecessary and irrelevant issues.

¶27

c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon`ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶29

The controversy arose out of a suit filed by the respondent no.2 for eviction and recovery of rent against the petitioner. The petitioner moved applications under Order 6 Rule 16 read with Section 151 CPC and Order 14 Rule 5 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, which have been rejected by the learned court below. Counsel for the petitioner Shri Surendra Thanvi has pointed out that the suit is specifically under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, therefore, any pleadings pertaining to the Rajasthan Rent Control Act would not be appropriate to be considered by the learned court below. Counsel for the petitioner

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CW-4028/2017]

¶32

further averred that the court’s precious time and energy shall be wasted in deciding application of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act even when the suit itself was under Section 106 of the TP Act. Counsel for the petitioner states that such pleadings need to be excluded from the ambit of adjudication so as to enable a faster adjudication.

¶33

Counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner has not been able to point out exact prejudice caused to him by the pleadings in-question. Counsel for the respondent further pointed out that the learned court below has not closed the issue but has left it open to decide fate of the pleadings in the issues framed and, thus, the order would not cause prejudice to the petitioner.

¶34

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing record, this Court is of the opinion that apparently the suit was under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act but the same does not preclude the respondents from making any pleading in their plaint, which they have already made. We have also noted that the respondents in their written statement have not objected to the grounds requiring striking of pleadings which pertain to Rajasthan Rent Control Act, though, they have factually denied the same. This Court finds that the impugned order is justified as the main pleadings which are being objected by the petitioner have been framed as issues and the learned court below has observed that the petitioner’s right to exclude the pleadings shall automatically stand adjudicated when the issues are decided.

¶35

(4 of 4)

¶36

[CW-4028/2017]

¶37

Thus, in light of well justified and well reasoned order, no interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner’s right to oppose the pleadings pertaining to Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2003 shall remain open at the time of adjudication of the issues and this order shall not prejudice the same. Further, the petitioner’s right to get the suit restricted to the provisions of Section 106 of the TP Act shall be available to him without prejudice to this order in final stage of adjudication.

¶38

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶39

Sanjay

Shrikrishna Kumar v. Gram Nyayalaya,Bikaner and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrikrishna Kumar v. Gram Nyayalaya,Bikaner and Anr.

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

Shrimali Brahmin Samaj Vs Om Prakash and Anr.

Amrit Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Foolaram Vs Gordhanram and Ors.

Sunita Kumari and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Banwari Lal and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Smt. Neelima Jain Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.