Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1440 (RAJ)

Ugma Devi v. Gusai Lal

2015-08-03

ARUN BHANSALI

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the orders dated 17.1.2014 and 24.9.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC has been rejected and the review sought of the said order has also been rejected by the two orders respectively. 2. The respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction, inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent. One of the ground alleged in the plaint related to deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 ('the Act') without complying with the provisions of the Act. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner was granted permission under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC to produce the record of deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act. Where after, the petitioner filed an application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC for recalling the plaintiff, who was already examined as PW-1. The application was rejected by the trial court on 6.7.2013. Even before rejection of application on 6.7.2013, the petitioner has filed another application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC for taking on record original money order receipts and the notice sent by the petitioner, which application was rejected by the trial court. However, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by this Court on 23.5.2012 and the documents were directed to be taken on record subject to objections by the plaintiffs to be raised at the final arguments. 4. After rejection of application on 6.7.2013, the petitioner filed another application dated 26.8.2013 under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC for recalling the plaintiff, who was examined as PW-1 purportedly for the purpose of confronting the said witness with the documents permitted to be taken on record under orders of this Court. The application was opposed by the plaintiffs and the trial court by order dated 17.1.2014 rejected the application noticing that the documents were ordered to be taken on record by this Court on 23.5.2012 and the order dated 6.7.2013 was passed after order of the High Court and as the application was rejected thereafter, there was no reason to review the order dated 6.7.2013. 5. 5. The petitioner filed a review petition against the order dated 17.1.2014, inter-alia, indicating that the petitioner has filed a fresh application under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC and same was not a review petition and therefore, the trial court was not justified in treating the said application as review. 6. The trial court, after hearing the parties, rejected the application for review, inter-alia, on the ground that there was no reason to recall the witness. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC by treating the same as review petition and thereafter, it was also not justified in rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner as there was error apparent on face of record. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 9. It was submitted that the defence of the petitioner against eviction already stands struck off under the provisions of Section 13(5) of the Act and appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. It is further submitted that the matter is pending before the trial court since the year 2009 and the petitioner was merely seeking to delay the proceedings for unjustifiable reasons and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 11. Initially when the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC was accepted by the trial court and the petitioner was permitted to produce documents pertaining to deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act, the petitioner filed an application for recalling of witness PW-1 Gajanand. The application was rejected by order dated 6.7.2013 by a detailed order as the trial court came to the conclusion that the document pertains to the issue burden of which is on the petitioner and therefore, there was no reason for recalling the witness for the purpose of said documents, the order dated 6.7.2013 become final. 12. Where after, based on a order passed by this Court on 25.3.2012 pertaining to the documents, which also related to the same plea regarding deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act, the present application was filed again for recalling of the witness PW-1 Gajanand. 13. 12. Where after, based on a order passed by this Court on 25.3.2012 pertaining to the documents, which also related to the same plea regarding deposit of rent under Section 19A of the Act, the present application was filed again for recalling of the witness PW-1 Gajanand. 13. The trial court by the impugned order dated 17.1.2014, essentially on coming to the conclusion that there was no change in the circumstance, inasmuch as, earlier also the application was moved on account of the Court accepting the application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC and again the present application has been filed on account of acceptance of another application under Order 8, Rule 1A (3) CPC and as the earlier application was rejected, it observed that there was no reason to review the earlier order. 14. The observations made by the trial court on 17.1.2014 have to be read in the context, in which they have been made, wherein for similar applications filed under the same circumstances, the Court was of the opinion that any order different to order dated 6.7.2013 cannot be passed so as to review its earlier order and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court committed any error in observing that no review of the earlier order was required and also it cannot be said that the trial court under misconception regarding the application filed by the petitioner rejected the same. 15. For the same reason, the trial court was justified in dismissing the review petition filed by the petitioner. 16. So far as the merits of the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18, Rule 17 CPC is concerned, it is not in dispute that the documents pertained to the plea raised by the petitioner in defence to the allegations made by the petitioner regarding non-compliance of provisions of Section 19A and it is for the petitioner to prove the said documents by leading cogent evidence and there is apparently no reason to recall the witnesses for the purpose of confronting him with the said documents. 17. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed. As the suit pertains to the year 2009, the trial court is directed to proceed with the matter as expeditiously as possible.Petition dismissed. *******