Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Virendra Pratap Singh vs Devendra Kumar And Ors on 17 October, 2011
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JUDGMENT S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.13620/2011 (Virendra Pratap Singh Vs. Devendra Kumar & Ors.) Date of Order: 17/10/2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Hem Singh Rathore, for the petitioner.
Mr. Bharat Saini, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Bharat Saini submits that although he has filed the Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.2, but he has also instruction to argue the matter on respondent No.1, who is the brother of respondent No.2. Therefore, he is representing both the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.03.2011, passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, whereby the Rent Tribunal has directed that the affidavit of the petitioner (who is plaintiff in the eviction petition) will not be read in evidence.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 15.03.2011 is a non-speaking order and that on the said date the petitioner was not available in the court owing to urgent personal work unavoidable. He further submits that to expedite the proceedings of his own eviction petition, affidavit of another witness in support of eviction petition one Pratap Singh was filed. It is submitted that there was no intention to delay the proceedings inasmuch as the eviction petition is on his part and the delay if at all is only to his own prejudice. He submits that there was no prejudice caused to defendant-respondents owing to the absence of the plaintiff-petitioner on 15.03.2011 or in the matter being adjourned for a short duration. It is further submitted that the order dated 15.03.2011 operates harshly on the petitioner and entails effectively a dismissal of the eviction petition inasmuch as without the landlord's evidence being read, the fate of the eviction petition is a foregone conclusion.
Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner except that the order impugned is a resaonable and just order.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition.
The order dated 15.03.2011 is a non-speaking order. The Rent Tribunal has not indicated as to why another opportunity could not be granted to the plaintiff-petitioner to make himself available for cross-examination. It has not been found by the Tribunal that the petitioner was deliberately delaying the adjudication of the matter in a manner partaking the abuse of the Court's process. The learned Rent Tribunal has also not take into consideration the fact that the delay in any way was not to the prejudice of the opposite party.
Consequently, I am of the view that the Rent Tribunal ought to have taken a more liberal view of the matter and in the obtaining facts of the case granted one more opportunity to the petitioner as plaintiff in the eviction petition on terms it deems fit I am therefore in the facts of the case inclined to allow the writ petition and set aside the order dated 15.03.2011, passed by the Rent Tribunal.
The petitioner will make himself available for cross-examination on the next dated before the Rent Tribunal i.e. 18.10.2011.
(ALOK SHARMA), J.
MS/