HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4612/2020

Smt. Vimala Jain Wife Of Late Shri Gopi Chand Jain, Aged About 70 Years,

Resident Of Munshimahal Garden, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Defendant/Petitioner

Versus

1.

Arun Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Moti Chand Jain, By Caste Brahman,

Resident Of A-40, New Light Colony, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

...Plaintiff/Respondent

2.

M/s Rajasthan Marbles And Minerals, Munshimahal Garden, Tonk

Road, Jaipur Through Partners Shri Komalchand Patni. (Deceased)

3.

Komal Chand Patni S/o Shri Moolchand Ji Maroth Wale, Being

Partner M/s Rajasthan Marbles and Minerals, Resident Of A-13,

Uniyara Garden, Trimurti Circle, Moti Doongari Road, Jaipur.

(Deceased during Pendency of Suit)

3/1.

Kailash Chand Patni, Being Partner M/s Rajasthan Marbles and

Minerals, Resident Of S-B-4, Mahaveer Udhyan Park Colony, Near

Shiksha Shankul, JLN Marg Jaipur. (Deceased)

4.

Anil Kumar Jain S/o Shri Padam Chand Jain, Partner, M/s Rajasthan

Marbles and Minerals, Resident Of B-34, Prabhu Marg, Tilak Nagar,

Jaipur.

----Defendants/Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Prahlad Sharma, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Divyesh Maheshwari, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

Order

Date of Order

::

25/03/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-non

applicant (for short, 'the non applicant') under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India against the order dated 25.11.2019 passed

by the Rent Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the non

applicant under Order 9 Rule 7 readwith Section 151 CPC has

been dismissed.

(2 of 9)

[CW-4612/2020]

Facts of the case are that the respondent-applicant (for

short, 'the applicant') filed an eviction petition against the non

applicants. On 2.1.2013, notices were issued to the non

applicants. On 8.1.2013, the process server reached at the

residence of non applicant no.4, but when she was not found at

the given address and her daughter in law refused to accept the

notices, the process server said to have affixed the notice at the

outer door of opened house of non applicant no.4 in the presence

of witnesses. In this view of the matter, the Rent Tribunal vide its

order dated 15.1.2013 treated service of notice on non applicant

no. 4 as sufficient and due to her non appearance, ex-parte

proceedings were initiated against her on the same date. The non

applicant no.4 filed application under Order 9 Rule 7 readwith

Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings, which

came to be dismissed by the Rent Tribunal vide its order dated

25.11.2019. Hence, this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the non applicant submits that

neither proper service was effected on the non applicant nor any

notice of the Tribunal was received by her. For this reason, on

15.1.2013, non applicant could not appear before the Tribunal

when ex-parte proceedings were drawn against her. He further

submits that on 13.3.2019, the non applicant came to know about

initiation of ex-parte proceedings from one Anurag Patni. As soon

as the non applicant came to know about initiation of ex-parte

proceedings, she engaged an advocate and filed an application for

setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. However, the Rent

Tribunal erred while dismissing the same vide order dated

25.11.2019. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed

and set-aside.

(3 of 9)

[CW-4612/2020]

On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant

defended the impugned order. He submits that ex-parte

proceedings were drawn against the non applicant on 15.1.2013,

but the application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was

filed in the year 2019 i.e. after expiry of about 6 years. He further

submits that no reasonable justification was given for non-

applicant's non appearance before the Rent Tribunal for such a

long period of 6 years, despite the