IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mohammad Rafiq, J.
Virendra Kumar and others – Petitioners
Versus
Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar and others – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21199 of 2013 with S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 18210 of 2013
Decided On : 18-03-2016
Civil Procedure Code , 1908 - section 100 - Section 141 - Order 8 - Rule 9 - Order 43 - Rule 1 - Order 41 - Rule 25 - Order 6 - Rule 17- Rule 1 - Rule 2 - Rule 2-A - Rule 4 - Rule 18 - Seeking amendment - Facts of case are that a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by plaintiff - Eviction of defendants was sought on ground of personal bona fide necessity of suit shop by plaintiff as well as denial of title by defendants - Petitioners are predecessors in title, who died during pendency of suit - trial court vide judgment decreed suit - First appellate court, on appeal filed by respondents-defendants, vide judgment and decree dismissed appeal and confirmed aforesaid judgment and decree of trial court - Defendants-respondents filed second appeal before this Court, bearing which was admitted on It may be noted that during pendency of appeal, defendants-respondents filed an application seeking amendment in written statement to bring on record subsequent events, especially fact about death and that his office has now become available for his son to pursue practise as an advocate and what would be effect of second shop owned by this plaintiff and earlier occupied by "Prince Dry Cleaners" being vacated and possession thereof was handed over to legal representative of plaintiff – Held , Court in case of State of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Iqbal (supra) after considering various judgments of different High Courts including judgment of this court in M/s. Ajanta Enterprise (supra), held that plaintiff cannot be allowed to introduce new pleas under garb of filing rejoinder, so as to alter basis of his plaint. In rejoinder, plaintiff has a right to explain only additional facts incorporated by defendant in his written statement. In rejoinder, plaintiff cannot be permitted to come forward with an entirely new case or raise inconsistent pleas so as to alter his original cause of action - permits subsequent pleadings by leave of Court. This provision no doubt relates to proceedings in a suit, but Section 141 deals with miscellaneous proceedings. wordings of Section 141 clearly lay down that procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed so far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction. proceedings for temporary injunction are miscellaneous proceedings which are separately registered and decided by a separate order. Any order passed of order is appeal able under clause of is temporary in sense that it remains in force till final disposal of suit, but it cannot be lost sight of that such order has a very important effect and bearing as main suit takes long number of years before final decision. Such order passed on an application for temporary injunction. Sometime, Court has to pass an order in form of mandatory injunction on an application for temporary injunction in order to meet ends of justice - Writ petition dismissed
Mr. Mohammad Rafiq, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against order dated 18.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar (for short 'the first appellate court') whereby application filed by the respondents-defendants in their appeal has been allowed and it has been directed by the first appellate court that rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs in response to amended written statement shall be kept confined to newly added para 4(a) of the amended written statement and rest of the averments made in the rejoinder shall be excluded from consideration.
2. Facts of the case are that a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by plaintiff late Shri Rang Bahadur. Eviction of the defendants was sought on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the suit shop by plaintiff as well as denial of title by defendants. The petitioners are predecessors in title of late Shri Rang Bahadur, who died during pendency of the suit. The trial court vide judgment dated 15.12.1995 decreed the suit. The first appellate court, on appeal filed by the respondents-defendants, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1998 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendants-respondents filed second appeal before this Court, bearing No. 47/1999, which was admitted on 10.02.1999. It may be noted that during pendency of the appeal, the defendants-respondents filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement to bring on record subsequent events, especially the fact about death of Shri Rang Bahadur and that his office at Alwar has now become available for his son Mahendra Kumar Mathur to pursue practise as an advocate and what would be effect of second shop owned by this plaintiff and earlier occupied by "Prince Dry Cleaners" being vacated and possession thereof was handed over to the legal representative of the plaintiff. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2013 granted opportunity to the defendants to file amended written statement before the first appellate court and allowed the plaintiff to file his rejoinder thereto and while doing so remanded the matter back to the first appellate court by framing following two additional issues :-
"1. Whether on the death of plaintiff Rang Bahadur Mathur, his office, if any, at Alwar became available for his son Mahendra Kumar Mathur to pursue his practise as an Advocate there from and the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the tenanted shop for Mahendra Kumar Mathur ceased thereupon ?
2. Whether the second shop owned by the plaintiff and earlier occupied by "Prince Dry Cleaners" has been vacated and possession thereof handed over to the legal representatives of the plaintiff and if so its affect on the suit for eviction based on bona fide and reasonable necessity of plaintiff's son Mahendra Kumar Mathur for setting up his office as an Advocate?"
3. The petitioners-plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.09.2013 passed by this Court before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 5925/2014. The Supreme Court taking note of the fact that Issue No. 1 does not pertain to subsequent event since Shri Rangbahadur Mathur died as early as in 1986, vide its order dated 07.09.2015 set aside that part of the order passed by this Court in second appeal and maintained the order only in respect of Issue No. 2 with direction that the first appellate court shall record its findings within a period of six months from the date of communication of that order. Both the parties appeared before the first appellate court. The defendants-respondents filed amended written statement on 04.10.2013. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed rejoinder thereto. It was thereafter that the respondents-defendants moved an application before the first appellate court with the prayer that the rejoinder may be taken on record only to the extent of reply to newly added para 4(a) of the amended writt
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.