Disposed¶25

Deepak Jain Son of Late Shri Tarachand Ji Jain v. Smt. Chandrakanta Patni Wife of Shri Pradhumn Kumar Patni

Rajasthan HC21 Nov 2025CW/6414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refusal of time-bound/expedited disposal direction for subordinate tribunal; rent application pending at arguments stage since 2019; Section 21 of the Act; adjournments to be discouraged; Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526); High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 150, para 47.3); Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur; CW-6414/2024; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Civil writ petition disposed of with the direction that no time-bound mandate be imposed on the Tribunal; the Tribunal is expected to regulate its own procedure for effective and expeditious disposal and to refuse unnecessary or unwarranted adjournments. ¶25

Deepak Jain Son of Late Shri Tarachand Ji Jain Vs Smt. Chandrakanta Patni Wife of Shri Pradhumn Kumar Patni — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether this Court should direct expedited, time-bound disposal (within six months) of Rent Application No.735/2019, pending since 2019 at the arguments stage on an application under Section 21 of the Act.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

This Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the pending rent and eviction petition within a time-bound manner, having regard to the Apex Court's deprecation (via Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi and the constitutional-bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, para 47.3) of constitutional courts fixing disposal timelines except in exceptional circumstances.

¶23

Key takeaways

The learned Tribunal is expected to regulate its own procedure in respect of the cases on board for effective disposal, to ensure expeditious disposal within a reasonable period of time, and not to entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single-judge order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Maneesh Sharma dated 21/11/2025, disposing of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6414/2024 filed by Deepak Jain seeking expedited disposal, within six months, of Rent Application No.735/2019 ('Deepak Jain Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta Patni'), which has been pending since 2019 at the arguments stage on an application filed under Section 21 of the Act. Relying on Sangram Sadashiv Suryavanshi v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526) and the constitutional-bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. (2024 INSC 150), whose para 47.3 (quoted in the judgment) holds that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing time-bound schedules for disposal of cases pending before other courts save in exceptional circumstances, this Court declined to issue any direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the rent and eviction petition within a time-bound manner. Instead, the Tribunal was directed to regulate its own procedure for effective disposal, dispose of cases expeditiously within a reasonable period, and not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment. All pending applications were likewise ordered disposed of.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:47196]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6414/2024

¶4

Deepak Jain S/o late Shri Tarachand Ji Jain, aged about 46 Years, R/o 281, Radha Damodar Ji Ki Gali, Nataniyon Ka Rasta, Tripoliya Bazar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Smt. Chandrakanta Patni W/o Shri Pradhumn Kumar Patni, aged about 63 Years, R/o (1) 241, Vinoba Vihar, Jagarpura Road, Behind Trimurti Apartment, Jaipur (2) 281, Radha Damodar Ji Ki Gali, Nataniyon Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

21/11/2025

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for expeditious disposal of the Rent Application No.735/2019 titled ' Deepak Jain Vs. Smt. Chandrakanta Patni '.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent application was filed in 2019, and the said petition has been pending at arguments stage on an application filed under Section 21 of the Act. Therefore, he prays that the disposal of the Rent Application No.735/2019 may kindly be expedited and disposed of within a period of six months.

¶15

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record.

¶16

From a bare perusal of the order-sheets, it is reflected that the petitioner's application was filed in 2019, and at present the same is pending at the stage of arguments on an application.

[2025:RJ-JP:47196]

[CW-6414/2024]

(2 of 2)

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

¶21

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:

¶22

“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;"

¶23

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to issue a direction to the learned Tribunal to decide the pending rent and eviction petition within a time-bound manner.

¶24

But at the same time, the learned 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 the learned Tribunal that they will not entertain unnecessary and unwarranted requests for adjournment.

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶28

DEEPA-27

¶29

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3526

¶30

2 2024 INSC 150

Deepak Jain Son of Late Shri Tarachand Ji Jain v. Smt. Chandrakanta Patni Wife of Shri Pradhumn Kumar Patni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Jain Son of Late Shri Tarachand Ji Jain v. Smt. Chandrakanta Patni Wife of Shri Pradhumn Kumar Patni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Sharma, Son of Shri Kanhaiyalal Vs Sonidevi, Wife of Late Shri Kanhaiyalal

Sharda Devi Wife of Late Shri Govind, Vs Ms/ Sandhu Enterprises

Rameshwar S/O Kushla Vs Mohan Lal S/O Shri Chetaram

Sanatan Dharam Sabha Vs Ashok Kumar Son of Shri Lekhram

M/S. Rajasthan Marble Minerals Vs Arun Kumar Jain S/O Late Shri Moti Chand Ji Jain

Shri Dadupati Samaj Panchayat Vs Thakur Ji Shri Dadudayal Ji