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. 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