J U D G M E N T

1. A similar controversy in the petitions pertains to the dismissal of the applications of the petitioners filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 7 of 2024 & connected matter Page 1 of 8 Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as “CPC”) for condonation of delay in filing rejoinder, rejoinder affidavit and documents and for recalling the order dated 22.08.2019 for closing opportunity to file the rejoinder.

2. The background of both the cases reveal that the respondent herein filed an Eviction Petition in RC/ARC No. 207/2019 and RC/ARC No. 208/2019 titled as “Krishan Kanhaya vs. Suresh Kumar & Ors” and “Krishan Kanhaya vs. Kamla” respectively against the petitioners in the year 2019. The petitioners filed a leave to defend application on 16.08.2019. Vide order dated 22.08.2019, the learned CCJ cum ARC (hereinafter referred as “ARC”) directed the respondents to file reply to leave to defend application within one month. Additionally, in RC/ARC No. 207/2019 the learned Trial Court granted one month‟s time to the petitioner to file rejoinder. However, no opportunity was given to the petitioner in RC/ARC No. 208/2019 to file a rejoinder and the matter was directly listed for arguments on the application seeking leave to defend.

3. The reply to the leave to defend application along with documents was filed on behalf of the respondent on 24.10.2019. On the next date of hearing, which was on 30.10.2019, the matter was adjourned to 08.07.2020 for arguments on the leave to defend application.

4. It was brought to the knowledge of the learned Trial Court on 08.07.2020 that the petitioners have left their previous counsel, hence the matter was further adjourned for 17.10.2020. A new counsel was engaged by the petitioners on 10.09.2020 who filed his Vakalatnama and inspected the court file on 18.09.2020. It is the case of the petitioner that the new counsel came to know about the order dated 22.08.2019 during the process of inspecting the file and that is how they got to know that the petitioner was Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 7 of 2024 & connected matter Page 2 of 8 supposed to file his rejoinder within one month from the date of receipt of reply to leave to defend in view of the order dated 22.08.2019.

5. On 25.03.2021, an application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the petitioner in the petition bearing no. RC/ARC No. 207/2019 for condonation of delay in filing rejoinder, rejoinder affidavit and documents and for recalling the order dated 22.08.2019 by which opportunity to file the rejoinder was closed. Simultaneously, similar application was also moved in RC/ARC No. 208/2019 for grant of opportunity to place on record rejoinder, rejoinder affidavit and documents. The learned ARC, vide the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 dismissed the applications moved by the petitioners. 6. The petitioners have filed the present petitions bearing CM(M) no. 7/2023 and 9/2023 respectively under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court impugning the orders dated 17.08.2023 passed in both Eviction Petitions pending adjudication before learned ARC.

Submissions by the Parties:

7. The arguments have been heard at length as advanced on behalf of the parties and record has been considered.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has questioned the correctness of the recitals as appearing in the impugned orders and submits that while filing reply to leave to defend, new extraordinary facts and some new documents have been placed on record by the respondent and in order to counter all such new facts etc. filing of rejoinder and rejoinder affidavits is essential to ascertain the true circumstances for disposal of leave to defend applications. Moreover, as far as the documents filed along with leave to defend applications are concerned, some of them pertain to the case filed by Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 7 of 2024 & c