Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 783 (RAJ)

Ashok Kumar Jindal S/o Shri Shree Kishan Jindal v. Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (Raj)

2019-03-08

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 16.4.2018 and 19.2.2019 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Tribunal), vide which the petitioner’s application dated 5.1.2019, under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) has been rejected. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent No.2 filed a petition for eviction of disputed premises on the ground of personal bonafide necessity before the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). During the pendency of the suit, he filed an application seeking amendment in the petition under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, which application came to be allowed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 24.5.2017, operative portion whereof reads thus: **mijksDr foospu ds ifjisz{; esa vizkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= varxZr /kkjk 18 vf/kfu;e lifBr /kkjk 151 fl-iz-la- fnukafdr 15-04-2013 vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ,oa izkfFkZ;k }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuki= varxZr /kkjk 21 vf/kfu;e lifBr vkns’k 6 fu;e 17 fl-izla- fnukafdr 17-12-2014 Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkZuki= esa of.kZrkuqlkj izLrkfor la’kks/ku ;kfpdk esa djus dh vuqefr iznku dh tkrh gSA izkfFkZ;k fu;ekuqlkj la’kksf/kr ;kfpdk is’k djsaA vkns’k lquk;k x;kA i=koyh okLrs is’k gksus la’kksf/kr ;kfpdk fnukad 24-07-2017 dks is’k gksaA** 3. In spite of the fact that his application had been allowed, the respondent No.2 did not file amended petition, hence, the petitioner-tenant moved an application under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code on 5.1.2018 and prayed that the right of the respondent No.2 to file amended plaint be closed. The petitioner’s application under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code came to be rejected by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.4.2018 with the observation that the Tribunal had not specifically closed the right of the petitioner to file amended plaint and further that the amended plaint was already taken on record. The Tribunal also opined that the interest of justice warrants that the same be not taken off the record. 4. Faced with the aforesaid order dated 16.4.2018, the petitioner moved another application dated 27.7.2018 seeking review of the order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Tribunal. The said application for review of the order dated 16.4.2018 also came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. 5. 4. Faced with the aforesaid order dated 16.4.2018, the petitioner moved another application dated 27.7.2018 seeking review of the order dated 16.4.2018 passed by the Tribunal. The said application for review of the order dated 16.4.2018 also came to be rejected by the Tribunal on 19.2.2019. 5. The petitioner has laid challenge to both the orders dated 16.4.2018 and 19.2.2019 by way of the present writ petition. 6. Mr. Arpit Bhoot learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the provisions contained in Order VI Rule 18 of the Code are mandatory and since the respondent no.2 had admittedly failed to submit amended plaint within a period of 14 days, her amended plaint firstly could not have been taken on record. He further submitted that the petitioner had relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Darshan Singh Vs. Keval Kishan reported in 2003(3) WLN 64, but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. 7. Argument of the petitioner has further been that Rule 18 of the Code is mandatory and until and unless the Court by speaking order extends the period of filing the amended plaint, a plaint cannot be taken on record. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perusd the provisions and judgment cited by him. It will not out of place to reproduce provisions contained in Rule 18 of Order VI of the Code, which read thus: “18. Failure to amend after order.-If a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for the purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court.” 9. A perusal of the provisions contained in Rule 18 prima facie gives an impression that the same are mandatory and the Court is required to strictly adhere to such mandate of law. It is also not in dispute that while allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, the Tribunal had simply allowed the application without giving any outer limit for filing the amended plaint. It is also not in dispute that while allowing the application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, the Tribunal had simply allowed the application without giving any outer limit for filing the amended plaint. As such, the time allowed by Rule 18 of Order VI of the Code would indisputably apply and it was required of the rent petitioner to have filed the written statement within a period of 14 days from grant of her amendment application i.e., 5.1.2018. 10. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the amended petition filed by the original petitioner – respondent no.2 had already been taken on record by the Tribunal, by the time petitioner filed his application dated 5.1.2018. The Tribunal has rejected the petitioner’s application keeping in mind the interest of justice as a paramount consideration. 11. As far as the judgment cited by Mr. Bhoot in case of Darshan Singh (supra) is concerned, the facts are slightly different. In that case, the trial court had refused to take the amended plaint on record and the petitioner therein had filed a revision petition against such order. The High Court rejected the said revision petition, inter alia observing that the provisions contained under Order VI Rule 18 of the Code are mandatory. It is also to be noticed that the trial Court while passing the order dated 8.11.2001 in the said case had found that the plaintiff has failed to furnish the written statement within 30 days without any justifiable reasons. 12. In view of the aforesaid distinguishing feature that in the case before this Court the facts were that the trial Court itself had rejected the plaintiff’s right to file amended plaint, whereas in the present case, the Tribunal had accepted the written statement while observing that her right of filing amended petition had not been closed. This being the fact situation, though there is no specific order of extension of time for filing amended petition, the fact that the amended petition has been taken on record, would tantamount to automatic extension of time. 13. This being the fact situation, though there is no specific order of extension of time for filing amended petition, the fact that the amended petition has been taken on record, would tantamount to automatic extension of time. 13. Be that as it may, since the Tribunal below has taken the amended plaint on record and thereafter rejected petitioner’s application for taking the amended plaint off the record, this Court does not find it to be a fit case warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Needless to observe that no substantial injustice has been caused to the petitioner – defendant. 14. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 15. The stay petition being SB Civil Misc. Stay Application No.3419/2019 also stands rejected.