Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Laxmi Agencies vs Kailash Chand Kala And Ors on 14 February, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12860/2010 M/s Laxmi Agencies Vs Kailash Chand Kala & ors 14.2.2011 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Sudesh Bansal for petitioner Mr Amit Gupta - for respondents BY THE COURT:
The matter has come up on an application seeking vacation of the stay order dated 1.10.2010, however, with the consent of learned counsel for parties, the matter has been heard finally.
In a case for eviction, defendant- petitioner made an application for amendment in the written statement. The application was filed at the stage when case was fixed for final hearing. Amendment sought on the ground that plaintiff respondents are possessing alternative premises. Certain documents were also filed to show possession of the alternative premises by the respondents.
In reply to it, possession of the premises referred in the application for amendment was not disputed by the respondents. It was however clarified that premises has been taken on rent. The premises otherwise belongs to Digamber Jain Mandir. Thus, effort of the petitioner is nothing but to delay the matter.
I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner will show that the premises mentioned in the amendment application does not belong to Digamber Jain Mandir and would produce the documents to show title of the respondents over the premises in question. However, he wants time for that purpose. A month's time is prayed for to collect documents and that if documents are procured by the petitioner, he may be allowed to make amendment in the written statement. In case of failure to get documents mentioned aforesaid, the order passed by the court below may be treated as confirmed.
Learned counsel for respondents is satisfied with the arrangement suggested by learned counsel for petitioner.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of as prayed by learned counsel for petitioner. The impugned order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the court below will not come in the way of the petitioner if documents, as requested by learned counsel for petitioner, is produced before the court below. Looking to the pendency of the case, court below is directed to expedite the proceedings which should be as per the object given in the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and period given therein.
(MN Bhandari) J.
bnsharma