Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 355 (RAJ)

Badli v. Vikram Singh

2016-03-02

ARUN BHANSALI

body2016
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 03.04.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC seeking permission to file a replication has been rejected. 2. The respondent was granted recovery certificate by order dated 17.01.2012 by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur in proceedings initiated by him against one Pradhumn Deo Singh. When the recovery certificate was put in execution and possession of the suit property was obtained, petitioner filed objections under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC before the Rent Tribunal. 3. The respondent filed reply on 21.10.2014, where after the issues were framed on 28.11.2014 and the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Where after matter was adjourned from time to time either for petitioner's evidence or on applications filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Commissioner for examining petitioner No.1 and for summoning record. 4. Thereafter, on 31.03.2015 application was filed by the petitioner seeking to file replication to the reply filed by the respondent. Though no reply to the application was filed by the respondent, the same was resisted. 5. The Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the application filed by the petitioner was delayed, there is no provision for filing replication under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC and, consequently, rejected the application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Rent Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground as indicated in the order impugned, it was submitted that petitioner No.1 was suffering from Cancer and on that ground could not brief the counsel appropriately, which lead to the delay in filing the application. 7. It is further submitted that though no specific provision is there under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC for filing rejoinder, the general principles as contained in Order 8, Rule9 CPC would apply and, therefore, the Rent Tribunal committed error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It was submitted that almost on seven occasions, the matter was got adjourned after the issues were framed by the Rent Tribunal for leading evidence and thereafter, the present application was filed. 10. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. It was submitted that almost on seven occasions, the matter was got adjourned after the issues were framed by the Rent Tribunal for leading evidence and thereafter, the present application was filed. 10. It was submitted that besides the fact that the application was much delayed without any explanation for the delay, the application under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC also does not contain any reasons for permission to file replication and, therefore, on that ground also no interference is called for in the order impugned. Reliance was placed on Ishwar Lal & Anr. v. Ashok & Anr. 1998 (3) WLC (Raj.) 223. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Rent Tribunal clearly indicates that the application has been rejected essentially on the ground of delay and another reason indicated is that there is no provision for filing the replication under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC. 13. So far as the delay in filing the application seeking permission to file replication is concerned, the dates as noticed here-in-before, though appear seven in numbers, the said dates were fixed within a short span of four months by the Rent Tribunal and in between, certain applications filed by the petitioner were also dealt with. 14. It is no doubt true that if a replication was required to be filed by the petitioner, the prayer in this regard should have been made immediately on filing of the reply and issues should have been framed thereafter, however, the petitioner did not seek any such permission and permitted the matter to proceed with the framing of the issues and kept on seeking time for leading evidence. 15. The reason indicated for the delay in not filing the application, though is not reflected from the application filed under Order 8, Rule 9 CPC, however, the same is evident from the nature of applications which were filed after the matter was fixed by the Rent Tribunal for leading evidence, inter alia, indicating that petitioner No.1 was suffering from Cancer and application was filed for appointment of Commissioner for examination of petitioner No.1. This aspect of delay, by itself cannot be a reason for rejection of application if the Rent Tribunal, otherwise found the filing of replication justified in the circumstances of the case, however, the Rent Tribunal has not cared to look into the merits of the application and/or the requirement to file replication. 16. A look at the application filed by the petitioner also does not indicate any specific reason and/or pointing out the plea which has been taken in the reply requiring filing of the rejoinder and apparently a rejoinder to each and every paragraph of the reply has been filed, which is essentially against the requirements and spirit of application and provisions of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC. 17. So far as the reasons indicated by the trial court regarding absence of any provision in Order 21, Rule 99 CPC regarding filing replication is concerned, the Rent Tribunal was apparently obsessed by provisions of Section 15(4) of the Rent Control Act, 2001 which provides for filing of rejoinder as a part of procedure, however, once the application is entertained under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC, the provision of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC would be applicable. 18. In view of the above, the dismissal of the application merely on account of delay and on account of absence of any provision for filing replication passed by the Rent Tribunal cannot be sustained. 19. However, as the application filed by the petitioner along with proposed replication also does not comply with the requirements of Order 8, Rule 9 CPC as noticed herein before, wherein the petitioner is required to indicate the specific reasons for which the rejoinder is required to be filed along with those portions of the reply/written statement which requires filing of the rejoinder and as a matter of course rejoinder to each paragraph of the reply cannot be filed. 20. In view thereof, the petitioner may file a fresh application before the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal would decide the application afresh after hearing the parties on the said application. 21. So far as the delay in filing of the application and/or pendency of the proceedings before this Court are concerned, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 7,500/- to the respondent. 22. 21. So far as the delay in filing of the application and/or pendency of the proceedings before this Court are concerned, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 7,500/- to the respondent. 22. So far as the judgment in case of Iswar Lal (supra) is concerned, the principles as laid down therein are well settled, however, the aspect as noticed in the present case wherein the trial court has not even considered the merits of the replication was not an issue in the case of Ishwar lal. 23. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed. The order dated 03.04.2015 passed by the Rent Tribunal is quashed and set aside. 24. The matter is remanded back to the Rent Tribunal to re-decide the application with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application, if the petitioner so choses, on payment of costs of Rs. 7,500/- to the respondent. 25. Looking to the nature of dispute, the Rent Tribunal is directed to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.