[2026:RJ-JD:3266]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16892/2023 Pramila W/o Nitin Kumar Srivastava, Aged About 42 Years, 1St Floor, House No. 46, C-Block, Sri Ganganagar ----Petitioner Versus Mukesh Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Parnami, House No. 205, Street No. 5, Indra Colony, Sri Ganganagar ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar for Mr. Rakesh Matoria.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dishant Verma. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

19/01/2026

1. The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar, rejecting the application of the petitioner-tenant under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Explaining the background facts, counsel for the petitioner- tenant stated that one Late Smt. Darshna Devi filed eviction petition bearing Rent Case No. 24/2021, against the petitioner- tenant on the ground of bonafide necessity as well as requirement of repair and maintenance in the premises in question. She was expired on 05.07.2021 and respondent Mukesh Kumar, being her son, has been impleaded as her legal representative and continued the said eviction petition.

Later on, the respondent himself has preferred a fresh rent petition, Rent Petition No. 01/2023 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. Smt.

Pramila), inter alia, on the ground of default in payment of rent.

3. The petitioner-tenant preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the subsequent petition and prayed for dismissal of the said petition on the ground that subsequent rent petition is barred by principles of res subjudice and res judicata.

4. The application so preferred by the petitioner-tenant was contested by the respondent-landlord. Learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar while passing order dated 02.08.2023 dismissed the application on the ground that the subsequent petition has been filed on different ground and for the purpose of application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only the contents of the plaint/petition are required to be seen, which in itself does not seem to be barred by any law.

5. Challenging the order dated 02.08.2023, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Section 10 and Section 11 of CPC, stated that learned Rent Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as the subsequent rent petition has been filed by the respondent-landlord for the purpose of same relief and with regard to the same premises in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the subsequent petition between the same parties is apparently barred by the principles of res subjudice/res judicata and, therefore, the continuation of both the proceedings at the same time is not permissible in the eye of law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner-tenant have not been considered by learned Rent Tribunal in their true context. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.08.2023 is liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, counsel for respondent-landlord, Mr. Dishant Verma vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and argued that as a matter of fact, the subsequent rent petition has been filed on entirely different grounds and in view of the subsequent cause of action i.e. default in payment of rent committed by the petitioner-tenant. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that the order impugned in the present writ petition is absolutely justified and in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Pandurangan Vs. T. Jayarama Chettiar & Anr.” reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC

1425.

8. Learned counsel for respondent also stated that the objection raised on behalf of petitioner regarding principle of res subjudice/res judicata under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has rightly been rejected by learned Rent Tribunal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord also apprised this Court that the earlier Rent Petition No.24/2021, originall