Partly allowed

Abhishek Mathur S/O Late Shri Premnarayn Mathur v. Ramesh Dhobhi S/O Nathulal

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2025CW/17242/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to dispose of an eviction petition within three months and for expeditious disposal of an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court refused to fix a time-bound schedule for the eviction petition but directed the Tribunal to decide the Order 7 Rule 11 application within 15 days while relying on Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi. The writ petitio

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed. No direction on eviction petition timeline; Tribunal to decide Order VII Rule 11 application within 15 days.

Abhishek Mathur S/O Late Shri Premnarayn… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46504]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17242/2025

¶4

Abhishek Mathur S/o Late Shri Premnarayn Mathur, aged about 35 years, R/o House No. 2294, Jahalaniyo Ka Rasta, Opposite Devdas Ki Bagichi Ki Gali, First Chouraha of Khajane Walo Ka Rasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) Presently Residing At House No. 3- M.A- 585, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ramesh Dhobhi S/o Nathulal, R/o 37/31, First Floor, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Adil For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 18/11/2025

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the learned Tribunal to expeditiously dispose of the Eviction Petition No. 336/2024 as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2024 and thereafter the respondent has moved an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, however, nearly one year has been passed but the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC has not been decided yet. Therefore, he prays that the disposal of the Eviction Petition No. 336/2024 as well as the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC may kindly be expedited and disposed of within a specified time.

[2025:RJ-JP:46504]

[CW-17242/2025]

(2 of 3)

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and

¶17

perused the material available on record.

¶18

From a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the eviction petition was filed only in 2024, wherein the matter is listed for arguments on the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11.

¶19

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra¹ while relying upon the constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P.² , has deprecated the practice of the Courts issuing directions to the subordinate Courts to decide the matter within a timeline, the relevant extract of para 47.3 of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) is reproduced as under:

¶20

“47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time- bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;"

¶21

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide the pending eviction petition No.336/2024 within a time-bound manner.

¶22

The concerned Rent Tribunal is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal and to ensure that the cases are disposed of expeditiously within a reasonable period of time; while doing so, it is also expected from

¶23

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526

2 2024 INSC 150

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:46504]

[CW-17242/2025]

the learned Rent Tribunal that they will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment.

¶29

It is further directed to the learned Rent Tribunal to decide pending application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the next date of hearing or within 15 days thereafter.

¶30

With the aforesaid direction, the present civil writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶32

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶33

SOURAV /78

Abhishek Mathur S/O Late Shri Premnarayn Mathur v. Ramesh Dhobhi S/O Nathulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhishek Mathur S/O Late Shri Premnarayn Mathur v. Ramesh Dhobhi S/O Nathulal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chand Khudase Wale Vs Arun Kumar

Kallu Mohammad S/O Shri Rustam Shah, Vs Reshma W/O Islam Daughter of Late Shri Abdul Shah

D K Agarwal and Anr. Vs Raj State Industrial Dev Investment Cor

Jaimal S/O Shri Magnaram Vs Liluram S/O Bhagiratmal

Chandrika Prasad S/O Late Shri Ganga Prasad Shukla, Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Gordhan Son of Late Shri Rampratap Vs Radheshyam Son of Nangya @ Nangram