This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's order rejecting an application to produce additional documents under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC. The court held that the application was belatedly filed at the evidence stage without prior pleadings and no sufficient explanation for the delay was provided.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2549/2019
Smt. Naseem D/o Shri Mohammed Farook, W/o Shri Mohammed Aslam, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Musalman, Chandawalon Ki Haveli, Ghasmandi, Jodhpur. (Non-Applicants)
----Petitioner
Versus
(Non-Applicants)
---Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Narendra Thanvi |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Ushman Ghani for Mr. Tribhuwan |
| Gupta |
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
16/07/2019
The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.05.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by learned Additional Chief
(2 of 5) [CW-2549/2019]
Judicial Magistrate-cum-Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide which the petitioner’s application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected.
The facts in brief are that the original petitioners (respondents No.1 to 4 herein) filed an application under Sections 9 (a)(f)(i)(j)(m)(ii) & Section 6 read with Sections 18 & 22 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2001”), seeking eviction of the defendants, essentially on the ground of personal and bonafide need. In response to the petition so filed, the non-applicants (petitioner herein) filed a written statement on 02.07.2011 and disputed plaintiffs’ personal need and bonafide necessity, qua the subject property.
After framing of the issues, when the plaintiffs’ evidence was recorded and the petition was at the stage of defendants’ evidence, they filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 16.09.2016 and sought to produce certain documents and photographs, with a view to prove that the original petitioners are having other properties and hence, their need is not a bonafide need.
A reply to the said application came to be filed by the original-petitioners (respondents herein) on 14.12.2016, wherein it was asserted that the application has been filed after a highly belated stage and the additional facts, if any, were required to be brought on record, while filing the written statement or immediately thereafter.
Learned Tribunal below rejected petitioner’s aforesaid application under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
(3 of 5)
[CW-2549/2019]
vide its order dated 05.05.2018, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition.
Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, while inviting attention of the Court towards the pleadings of the parties, argued that the original petitioners have come with the specific case that they did not have any other premise, whereas the petitioner later on came to know that they are having other properties in the city and their purported bonafide need is not bonafide at all. He argued that learned Tribunal should have permitted the petitioner to produce additional documentary evidence, so as to enable the petitioner to demolish the case of the originalpetitioners(respondents herein)
As far as his assertion regarding bonafide need and absence of any other property was concerned, inviting Court’s attention towards para No.9(8) of the plaint and corresponding reply, Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the original petitioners have themselves asserted that the premises in which they were residing, at the relevant time, was insufficient looking to their family needs, they were in requirement of the subject premise, situated at Chandawalon Ki Haveli, Ghasmandi, the petitioner simply disputed their requirement in their written statement. However, in absence of pleadings of the original petitioners regarding not having any other property, they were not required to inquire about the existence of any other property of the original-petitioners-landlord. As soon as, the factum of their ownership regarding other properties came to petitioner’s notice, she filed application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code on 11.08.2016 and, thereafter, the contentious application under
(4 of 5)
[CW-2549/2019]
Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed (on 16.09.2016).
Mr. Usman Ghani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, supporting the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal below, argued that the petitioner’s application was highly belated. He further urged that the documents in question were in relation to the properties, which were allegedly owned by the respondents(original-petitioners) and in absence of any specific pleadings in the original written statement, the learned Tribunal was perfectly justified in rejecting petitioner’s application seeking to take the additional documents on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner alongwith other tenants had filed their written statement on 02.07.2011 and for a period of about 5 years they did not make any efforts to ascertain as to whether the landlord was having any other property to demolish their case of personal need and bonafide necessity. The application under consideration came to be filed at highly belated stage viz. at the stage of their evidence.
Learned Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground of delay and for want of requisite pleadings in the written statement by the order dated 05.05.2018.
In considered opinion of this Court, the said order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, inasmuch as, the petitioner ought to have been vigilant, if the defendants were interested in dislodging the case of the original petitioners-landlord, regarding their personal need and bonafide necessity. Additional evidence
(5 of 5)
[CW-2549/2019]
cannot be permitted at such a belated stage, sans any plausible explanation.
In light of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any force in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The Stay Petition No.2465/2019 also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
25-Ramesh/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should permit additional evidence under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC filed at a highly belated stage without specific pleadings regarding other properties.
Whether rejection of the application to produce additional documents by the Tribunal was legally sustainable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Naseem D/o Shri Mohammed Farook
Ramzan, LRs of Shri Anwar, Istihak, Afzal
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
