Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.S. Chauhan, J.
Atul Kuchhal —Petitioner
versus
Hem Ram and Anr. —Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7894 of 2014
Decided on 15.9.2014
For the Petitioner:Mahendra Goyal, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:S.M. Mehta, Sr. Counsel and Ms. Pallavi Mehta, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
An order which does not reveal ground for coming to conclusion, falls in category of being non-speaking order.
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order VI, Rule 17 — Rent Control Act, 2001 — Section 21 — Order under —Magistrate recorded pleas submitted by petitioner — Gone to record contentions raised by respondent — Elaborately quoted opinion of SC pronounced in a case — Suddenly concluded that the amendments sought by petitioner not germane to main ground of bona fide necessity — As pleaded by respondent landlord —HELD — Magistrate not given reasoning for jumping to this conclusion — Order set aside and remand back — For deciding application under Order 6, Rule 17 of CPC. [Paras 7 & 10]
Result: Petition allowed
R.S. Chauhan, J.—Aggrieved by the order dated 30.5.2014 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) and the Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001, the petitioner has approached this Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, Alok had filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground of bona fide necessity of his son for parking his Santro car in the shop which had been rented out to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed his written statement. Thereafter the issues were framed. According to the petitioner, after the issues were framed, the landlord constructed a wall in front of the shop in such a way that the wall blocked two feet of the entrance of the shop. Thus, according to the petitioner after the construction of the wall, the shop could not be used for parking the car. Since these were subsequent developments, after the submission of the written statement, the petitioner filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC for amending the written statement. But by order dated 30.5.2014 the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this court.
3. Mr. Mahendra Goyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that it is imperative that a reasoned decision should be given by the learned Magistrate. However, the learned Magistrate has failed to disclose his mind for rejecting the application. Therefore, the impugned order is a non-speaking order. Hence, it deserves to be set aside, and the case deserves to be remanded back to the learned Magistrate.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Sagarmal Mehta, the learned Senior Counsel, has raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, that according to the proviso to Order 6, Rule 17 CPC an amendment should not be allowed after the trial has commenced. According to the learned counsel the trial is said to have commenced with the framing of the issues. Therefore, according to him, the learned Magistrate was fully justified in dismissing the application as the issues had already been framed, and the trial had already commenced. Secondly, the subsequent event cannot be brought on record as it would be an endless process. According to the learned counsel, the relevant date is the date on which the suit for eviction was filed. In order to buttress this contention the learned counsel has relied on the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 2001 WLC (SC) Civil 201: 2001(1) Supreme 615: 2001(1) RCJ 522, and on the case of Peer Gulam Naseer Sajjadanabin & Mutawalli v. Mohammad Arif @ Arif Hussain & Other, 2004(5) WLC (Raj.) 799. Thirdly, relying on the case of Vidyabai & Others v. Padmalatha & Another, AIR 2009 SC 1433, the learned counsel has pleaded that after the affidavits were filed by the plaintiff, after the issues were framed, in case the impugned order suffers neither from a jurisdictional error, nor from any error of law, then the impugned order should be sustained by this court. According to Mr. Mehta, the impugned order does not suffer from either of the twin errors. Hence, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the impugned order.
6. The petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order is not with regard to the power of the court to permit, or not to permit the amendment sought to be made in the written statement. The frontal attack is with regard to the fact that no reason has been given by the learned Magistrate for drawing the conclusion that the amendments are irrelevant to the main ground of bona fide necessity as claimed in the plaint. Therefore, according to the petitioner his main grievance is that since the reasons are missing, he is unable to understand what transpired in the mind of the learned Magist
