Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution filed by the legal heirs of a deceased tenant challenging an order of the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan dated 18.09.2025 in eviction Petition No. 270/2014. The Rent Tribunal had allowed two applications filed by the respondent-landlord: one under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of paragraph 12 of the eviction petition to incorporate reference to a postal receipt and acknowledgment due card; the other under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 seeking permission to assign exhibit marks to those documents. The tenants opposed the applications on grounds that the matter had reached final arguments, the amendment was belated, and allowing it would alter the eviction petition and prejudice their accrued rights. The Tribunal found that the documents had been filed with the original eviction petition on 28.05.2014 and remained unmarked due to clerical omission; it allowed both applications and granted tenants liberty to file amended reply. In the writ petition, the High Court examined whether the Tribunal's order suffered from jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or perversity. The Court reiterated that amendments of pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine the real controversy, provided no new cause of action is introduced, no vested right is divested, and any prejudice can be compensated by granting opportunity to respond. It found that the amendment merely rectified an inadvertent omission by referring to documents already on record and did not change the character of the eviction proceedings; exhibit marking of documents already filed did not enlarge the landlord's case. The Court emphasized that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate and interference is warranted only in cases of manifest perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross failure of justice. The Court held that the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned and discretionary, aimed at facilitating effective adjudication of the real controversy; procedural law should serve as handmaid of justice and not thwart substantial justice on technical lapses. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and disposed of stay petition and pending applications, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Order VI Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Liberal approach to allow amendment for determining real controversy; amendment confined to incorporating reference to documents already on record, no new cause of action, no prejudice, opposite party allowed amended reply - Held that the Rent Tribunal correctly allowed amendment of paragraph 12 of eviction petition to rectify inadvertent omission (Paras 4, 4.1, 4.2, 5, 5.1) B) Rent Control Law - Exhibit Marking of Documents - Section 21, Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 - Documents filed along with eviction petition but inadvertently unmarked due to clerical omission; allowing exhibit marking does not introduce new evidence or enlarge case - Held that assigning exhibit marks to postal receipt and acknowledgment due card already on record is procedural rectification, not improvement of case (Paras 2.2, 2.4, 4, 5.1) C) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - Scope limited to jurisdictional errors, patent illegality, perversity, or gross failure of justice; not appellate; no interference unless order vitiated - Held that impugned order did not suffer from any such infirmity; writ petition dismissed (Paras 4.3, 5.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal) Jodhpur Metropolitan allowing applications under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 suffers from jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; stay petition and all pending applications disposed of; Rent Tribunal order dated 18.09.2025 upheld.
Law Points
- Amendment of pleadings should be liberally allowed to determine real controversy
- No new cause of action introduced
- No vested or accrued right divested
- Prejudice can be compensated by opportunity to file amended reply
- Procedural rules are handmaids of justice
- Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate
- Interference only on jurisdictional error patent illegality perversity or gross failure of justice
- Documents already on record may be assigned exhibit marks under Section 21 of Rajasthan Rent Control Act 2001
- Hyper-technical objections should not defeat adjudication on merits
