Vedprakash Arora vs Omprakash Arora ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 866 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/000441]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17674/2017

Vedprakash Arora S/o Shayam Sunder Arora, aged about 60
years, R/o 57, Arya Nagar, Alwar, Raj..
                                                        ----Petitioner/Landlord
                                    Versus
Omprakash Arora S/o Shayam Sunder Arora, Shayam, aged
about 62 years, Shayam Electricals, Kalakand Market, Alwar,
Rajasthan.
                                                        ----Respondent/Tenant

For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Ajay Goyal
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Mohit Gupta



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                 Judgment

25/01/2023

Although, the matter comes up on an application (1/2023)

filed by the petitioner seeking extension of the interim order dated

12.10.2017; but, on the request of the learned counsels for the

respective parties, this writ petition is heard on its merit at this

stage.

This writ petition is directed against the order dated

15.09.2017 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Alwar in Eviction

Petition No.11/2009 whereby, an application filed by the

petitioner/applicant under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC has been

dismissed.

The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner filed an

application against the respondent/non-applicant under Section 9

of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, "the Act of

2001") seeking his eviction from the suit shop stating the same to

[2023/RJJP/000441] (2 of 3) [CW-17674/2017]

have fallen in his share in the family settlement dated 15.01.1976.

Before evidence of the parties could begin, the petitioner filed an

application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC seeking leave of the

Tribunal to place original family settlement dated 15.01.1976 on

record, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its

order dated 15.01.1976, impugned herein.

Assailing the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the learned Tribunal erred in rejecting his application on the

premise that genuineness of the family settlement was under

cloud and also for the reason that it was unregistered. He submits

that at the time of consideration of his application under Order 7

Rule 14 CPC, the learned Tribunal could not have examined the

genuineness or admissibility of the document. He, therefore,

prayed that this writ petition be allowed, the order dated

15.09.2017 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by

him under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the learned Tribunal did not err in rejecting the application filed by

the petitioner inasmuch as genuineness of the family settlement

itself was doubtful. He submits that the document being

unregistered, the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the

application. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard. Considered.

In the eviction application filed by the petitioner, he has

claimed that the suit shop fell in his share under the family

settlement dated 15.01.1976. A photocopy of the agreement was

submitted along with the memo of application. Stating that

original of the family settlement was lying in some other case file

[2023/RJJP/000441] (3 of 3) [CW-17674/2017]

and as soon as, it was traced, it was being submitted without

delay, the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC came to be filed.

A perusal of the order impugned dated 15.09.2017 reveals that

the application has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal on

account of the document being unregistered and the transaction

under it being doubtful. It is trite law that the genuineness or

admissibility of the document sought to be placed on record along

with the application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC cannot be

examined by the learned trial Court at the time of consideration of

the application. The application was filed by the petitioner before

evidence of the parties began. The photo copy of the document

was already on record.

In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the application filed by the

petitioner.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order dated

15.09.2017 is quashed and set aside to the extent of dismissing

the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC

which stands allowed.

The application (1/2023) stands disposed of accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/32

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)