Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Arvind Kumar vs Smt. Saroj Sharma on 24 November, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15954/2021
Arvind Kumar S/o Krishna Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Sen, R/o 58 K, Chak Manphool Singh Wala, Sri Ganganagar
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Saroj Sharma W/o Uma Dutt Sharma, 44 G-Block, Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nrapen Shanker Acharya for
Mr. Sanjeet Purohit
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
24/11/2021
1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated
04.09.2020 passed by Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby petitioner's application dated
16.09.2019 submitted under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (for short the 'Code') has been rejected.
2. The petitioner - tenant moved an application under Order VI
Rule 17 of the Code in the original application filed by the
respondent - landlord on 16.09.2019, and sought to insert para
No.15 in the written statement raising an objection regarding
jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
3. While rejecting petitioner's application the Tribunal has
observed that the petition in question is maintainable before the
Tribunal.
4. Challenging the order impugned, Mr. Acharya, learned
counsel for the petitioner argued that the Tribunal could not have
(2 of 3) [CW-15954/2021]
made any observation or decided the petitioner's application
holding that the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the original
application.
5. According to him, the application under Order VI Rule 17 of
the Code is required to be decided strictly as per the statutory
provisions, without scrutinizing or commenting upon the merit of
the contentions raised in the application for amendment.
6. He prayed that the impugned order deserves to be quashed
and set aside as the same has been made in complete disregard of
the scope of Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC.
7. It was also argued that the question of jurisdiction goes to
the root of the matter and thus, learned Tribunal ought to have
applied liberal approach instead of rejecting petitioner's
application.
8. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of B.K.N.
Narayana Pillai Vs. P. Pillai & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 SC 614.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the order impugned, this Court finds that the Tribunal
has even gone into the aspect of the jurisdiction and held that the
Tribunal had the jurisdiction to deal with the rent petition filed by
the respondent - landlord.
10. In the opinion of this Court the Tribunal has pre-judged the
issue and has decided the issue, which was not by then, pending
rather permitted to be raised by the petitioner.
11. Technically speaking, the impugned order dated 04.09.2020
is not in conformity with the provision of Order VI Rule 17 of the
Code, however, this Court is of the view that the amendment
sought to be brought by the petitioner is clearly barred by 1 st
(3 of 3) [CW-15954/2021]
proviso to Order VI Rule 17 of CPC, inasmuch as it cannot be said
that the petitioner has brought in new facts or ground, which
despite his due diligence, could not be raised before the Tribunal.
12. Concededly, the case is at the stage of defence's evidence
and the suit has progressed at the substantial stage.
13. This being the position, the petitioner's application under
Order VI Rule 17 of the Code, in any case merited rejection.
14. The order dated 04.09.2020 is, hereby, affirmed, albeit for
different reasons.
15. The writ petition, therefore, fails.
16. Stay application too stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
42-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
