Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs against order dated 18.11.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No. 1, Alwar (for short 'the first appellate court') whereby application filed by the respondents-defendants in their appeal has been allowed and it has been directed by the first appellate court that rejoinder filed by the plaintiffs in response to amended written statement shall be kept confined to newly added para 4(a) of the amended written statement and rest of the averments made in the rejoinder shall be excluded from consideration.
(2.) Facts of the case are that a suit for eviction and arrears of rent was filed by plaintiff late Shri Rang Bahadur. Eviction of the defendants was sought on the ground of personal bona fide necessity of the suit shop by plaintiff as well as denial of title by defendants. The petitioners are predecessors in title of late Shri Rang Bahadur, who died during pendency of the suit. The trial court vide judgment dated 15.12.1995 decreed the suit. The first appellate court, on appeal filed by the respondents-defendants, vide judgment and decree dated 22.12.1998 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court. The defendants-respondents filed second appeal before this Court, bearing No. 47/1999, which was admitted on 10.02.1999. It may be noted that during pendency of the appeal, the defendants-respondents filed an application under Order 6, Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the written statement to bring on record subsequent events, especially the fact about death of Shri Rang Bahadur and that his office at Alwar has now become available for his son Mahendra Kumar Mathur to pursue practise as an advocate and what would be effect of second shop owned by this plaintiff and earlier occupied by Prince Dry Cleaners being vacated and possession thereof was handed over to the legal representative of the plaintiff. This Court vide order dated 20.09.2013 granted opportunity to the defendants to file amended written statement before the first appellate court and allowed the plaintiff to file his rejoinder thereto and while doing so remanded the matter back to the first appellate court by framing following two additional issues:- 1. Whether on the death of plaintiff Rang Bahadur Mathur, his office, if any, at Alwar became available for his son Mahendra Kumar Mathur to pursue his practise as an Advocate therefrom and the bona fide and reasonable necessity of the tenanted shop for Mahendra Kumar Mathur ceased thereupon 2. Whether the second shop owned by the plaintiff and earlier occupied by Prince Dry Cleaners has been vacated and possession thereof handed over to the legal representatives of the plaintiff and if so its affect on the suit for eviction based on bona fide and reasonable necessity of plaintiff's son Mahendra Kumar Mathur for setting up his office as an Advocate
(3.) The petitioners-plaintiffs challenged the aforesaid order dated 20.09.2013 passed by this Court before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal No. 5925/2014. The Supreme Court taking note of the fact that Issue No. 1 does not pertain to subsequent event since Shri Rangbahadur Mathur died as early as in 1986, vide its order dated 07.09.2015 set aside that part of the order passed by this Court in second appeal and maintained the order only in respect of Issue No. 2 with direction that the first appellate court shall record its findings within a period of six months from the date of communication of that order. Both the parties appeared before the first appellate court. The defendants-respondents filed amended written statement on 04.10.2013. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed rejoinder thereto. It was thereafter that the respondents-defendants moved an application before the first appellate court with the prayer that the rejoinder may be taken on record only to the extent of reply to newly added para 4(a) of the amended written statement and not to other paras to which earlier already written statement was filed. The aforesaid application was allowed by the first appellate court vide order dated 18.11.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-plaintiffs have approached this Court by this writ petition. At this stage, it may be noted that in view of the directions of the Supreme Court, though this matter was listed before this Court on 18.02.2016 on application for early listing of the writ petition, but the matter was heard finally and closed for orders.;