Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pawan Kumar Son Of Sitaram Jeevrajka vs Sajjan Kumar Podar Son Of Shri Ramjilal on 1 July, 2020
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6447/2020
Pawan Kumar Son Of Sitaram Jeevrajka, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 12, Near Podar Gate, Nawalgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Sajjan Kumar Podar Son Of Shri Ramjilal, Aged About 74
Years, Resident Of Podar Gate Ke Pass, Ward No. 12,
Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
2. Tarun Kumar Podar Son Of Late Shri Satyanarayan Podar,
Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Town
Nawalgarh, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
Through Its Power Of Attorney Plaintiff No. 1.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 01/07/2020 Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC was decided.
Brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner-defendant before the Trial Court in the year 2011. The petitioner-defendant filed a reply to the said suit, wherein it was admitted by the petitioner-defendant that he has paid the rent to the respondent No.2-plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed as many as eight issues vide order dated 28.08.2018. Thereafter, the (Downloaded on 03/07/2020 at 09:15:39 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-6447/2020] petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC seeking amendment in issue no.3. The said application was decided by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.10.2019 and the Trial Court reframed the issue no.3, "as to whether there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties" and the burden to prove this issue was shifted on the plaintiffs.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner-defendant has challenged the order dated 10.10.2019.
Counsel for the petitioner-defendant submitted that the Trial Court has committed serious illegality in reframing the issue no.3 and the Trial Court should have framed the issue "as to whether the plaintiffs-respondents are owner of the disputed property".
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons firstly, the petitioner in his reply filed before the Trial court has specifically admitted that he has paid the rent of the disputed shop to the respondent No.2-plaintiff, secondly, in my view the Trial court has rightly reframed the issue no.3 and thirdly, in a suit for eviction, the Trial Court cannot decide ownership of the property.
In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Trial Court.
Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra/61 (Downloaded on 03/07/2020 at 09:15:39 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)