Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Chandra Kumar Songara, J.
Rajkumar Soni - Appellant
Versus
Prabhudayal Agarwal - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2560/2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021
RENT CONTROL - AFFIDAVIT ADMISSION - The court addressed the dismissal of a petitioner's application to admit an affidavit under the Rent Control Act, emphasizing the importance of timely submissions and the need for satisfactory explanations for delays. The court ultimately decided to allow the affidavit to be admitted, contingent upon the petitioner paying costs and presenting himself for examination, thereby balancing procedural fairness with the need for adherence to timelines.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against an order dismissing their application to admit an affidavit in support of their reply under the Rent Control Act, after the evidence of the opposing party had closed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the delay in filing the affidavit was not satisfactorily explained, it deemed it appropriate to allow the affidavit to be taken on record, provided the petitioner complied with certain conditions.
Issues: Whether the court should allow the admission of the affidavit despite the delay and the dismissal of the initial application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that procedural rules must be balanced with the principles of justice, allowing for the admission of evidence when it serves the interests of fairness, provided that the petitioner meets the conditions set forth by the court.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the affidavit to be admitted, contingent upon the payment of costs and the petitioner's appearance as a witness.
ORDER
1. Looking to the controversy involved in the present case, the matter has been heard finally.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed against the order dated 06.02.2021 vide which the application dated 24.02.2020 filed by the petitioner under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for taking the affidavit of the petitioner on record in support of reply, was dismissed.
3. Indisputably, the petitioner filed an application for taking on record the affidavit at the time when the evidence of applicant Prabhudayal Agarwal was closed and the matter has been fixed for evidence of the petitioner and the delay in filing the affidavit has not been satisfactorily explained by the petitioner.
4. However, taking into consideration the facts of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to order that the affidavit of the petitioner as witness in support of the reply, is taken on record and it is further ordered that on the next date of hearing the petitioner shall produce himself as witness by giving a copy of the aforesaid affidavit at least three-days in advance to the opposite counsel and he be examined/cross-examined, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
5. It is further made clear that in case the petitioner fails to pay the cost, as directed herein-above and does not produce himself as witness, no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner.
6. With above directions, this writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of.
The court established that timely submission of evidence is crucial, but courts may exercise discretion to allow late submissions if justified by the circumstances, ensuring fairness in legal proceed....
The denial of the opportunity to adduce evidence renders the exhibition of documents meaningless, emphasizing the necessity for competent witnesses to prove documents in court.
The obligation to submit all evidence upfront in eviction proceedings is crucial, and late submissions without compelling justification are not permitted.
Adherence to procedural requirements within the stipulated time period and the demonstration of reasons beyond the petitioner's control for any delay in fulfilling such requirements.
The court has the discretion to direct the recording of a witness's statement at home through a Commissioner, considering the witness's medical condition and the interest of justice.
The court established that a witness's medical condition can necessitate recording their statement at home to ensure justice is served.
A party must adhere to procedural timelines, and repeated failures to comply without sufficient justification may result in the dismissal of their petitions and applications.
The main legal point established is that repeated failure to avail opportunities to file evidence and lack of justification for delay may demonstrate an intent to delay the suit, leading to dismissal....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
