An application for the amendment or framing of additional issues under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC filed at a belated stage of the trial, especially when the party has previously participated in the proceedings, is liable to be rejected to prevent undue delay in the trial.

Order

1. By way of filing the present civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the learned Rent Tribunal, Sri Ganganagar in Rent Case No.33/2015, whereby, the application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 filed a petition for eviction under Section 9(a) of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, before the learned Rent Tribunal on the basis of default of payment of rent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed a reply to the eviction petition and denied the landlord-tenant relationship. It is further averred that the petitioner had not defaulted any payment of rent since the respondent has no right to demand the same. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal framed issues and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC seeking amendment of existing issues and/or framing of additional issues. It is submitted that the issue with respect to landlord-tenant relationship had not been properly framed and warranted amendment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the learned Tribunal with the observation that the same had been filed at a belated stage and with the intent of causing delay in the proceedings of trial. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order warrants interference of this Court and the same being per se illegal deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel – Mr. Narendra Thanvi appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the eviction petition was filed way back in the year 2015 and subsequently, issues had been framed on 06.07.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings and was present at the time of framing of issues. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the application of the petitioner seeking amendment/ framing of additional issues has been filed with the sole intent to cause delay in the proceedings of trial since the trial has already reached fag-end. Therefore, it is prayed that the present civil writ petition be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

7. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the eviction petition was admittedly filed in the year 2015 and the issues were framed on 06.07.2016. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings, as reflected in the impugned order. Further, the petitioner preferred an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the CPC at a belated stage of the trial. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

8. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition stands dismissed.

9. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.