Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Chandra Kumar Songara, J.
Shri Mahesh Chand Jain - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Indradevi & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 19312/2018
Decided On : 05-04-2021
ORDER - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - The court addressed the dismissal of an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. by the trial court, determining that the proposed issue for framing was not adequately covered in existing issues. The court found that the trial court's decision was erroneous, leading to the allowance of the defendant-petitioner's application and the setting aside of the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. regarding issues framed in a civil suit for eviction and rent. The suit was initiated by the plaintiffs against the defendant-petitioner, who contested the terms of the rental agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in dismissing the application, as the proposed issue was not adequately addressed in the existing issues, contrary to the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Issues: Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. and whether the proposed issue was already covered in the existing issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the trial court's dismissal was based on an incorrect assessment of the issues, and the proposed issue warranted consideration as it was not sufficiently addressed in the existing issues.
Result: The impugned order was set aside, and the application filed by the defendant-petitioner was allowed, resulting in the writ petition being granted.
ORDER
1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge cum Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahuwa District Dausa, in Original Civil Suit No.02/2015 titling as Indradevi & Others Vs. Mahesh Chand Jain, whereby the application under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. filed by the defendant-petitioner had been dismissed.
2. Facts in nut-shell are that an original civil suit was instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs with regard to eviction of the shop and amount of rent. The defendant-petitioner filed an application dated 05.05.2016 under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. (Annexure-4) with regard to issues framed, which was rejected, vide impugned order dated 14.12.2016. Hence, this writ petition before this Court.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed serious illegality in dismissing the application filed by the defendant-petitioner. Counsel has further submitted that it has been stated in Para 2 of the suit that the respondent-plaintiff No.1 rented out her shop to defendant-petitioner from 10.03.1996 for a period of eleven-months on agreed amount of rent of Rs.3500/- per month with an annual increment of Rs.100/- in monthly rent. However, the present petitioner has stated in his reply to the suit that there was an agreement with regard to the shop, which was taken on rent and the defendant-petitioner had agreed to pay Rs.1000/- per month as rent with an annual increment of Rs.100/-. Lastly, counsel has prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application (Annexure-4) filed by the petitioner may be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioner and submitted that the defendant-petitioner had filed the application only to delay the proceedings.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
2. LRs. of late Shri Mohammed , B/C. AM Vs. Yasin Khan, reported in 2019 (2) W.L.C. (Raj.) 334.
6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material made available on record.
7. The learned trial Court, vide its impugned order dated 14.12.2016, held that the proposed issue, which defendant-petitioner wishes to be framed, has already been covered in Issue No.3, which is obviously not correct looking to the aforesaid averments made by plaintiffs-respondents in Para 2 of the suit and the reply of the defendant-petitioner.
8. Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents fail to advance the case of the respondents, as they are on different footing.
9. In view of above, this Court finds that the trial Court has committed illegality in passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 14.12.2016 is set aside and the application (Annexure-4) filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of C.P.C. is allowed.
10. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed.
11. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
The court established that a party is entitled to have issues framed that are not adequately covered by existing issues, ensuring a fair opportunity to present their case.
Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC is limited; High Court cannot interfere in the Trial Court's decision unless it is patently illegal or exhibits perversity.
Ownership issues cannot be determined in eviction suits, and certified copies of public documents are admissible in evidence.
Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings post-defendant's death was unjustified, highlighting the need for diligence in civil proceedings.
Ownership issues cannot be adjudicated in eviction suits; certified copies of public documents are admissible as evidence.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of procedural compliance and adherence to principles of natural justice in adjudicating applications under the CPC and CrPC.
The court emphasized that the addition of a prayer by way of amendment should be allowed if it clarifies the prayer clause without prejudice to the opposing party.
The court established that while adherence to procedural timelines is crucial, courts may exercise discretion to allow additional opportunities for parties to present their cases in the interest of j....
Delay in seeking amendment of pleadings without justification can lead to dismissal of the application, particularly if it obstructs timely adjudication of ongoing proceedings.
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
