A.S.GODARA - (1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 14.3.96 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) No. 3. Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 168/93 whereby the evidence of the defendant-petitioners has been ordered to be closed.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the legality and regularity of the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners, who are legal representatives of the original defendant Moti Lal, while assailing the impugned order contended that the case was pending trial at the stage of recording evidence of the defendant-petitioners. The plaintiff non-petitioner. Society, initially, through its Chairman Ganesh Singh Bhati instituted suit against the original defendant-Moti Lal and, during the pendency of the trial, due to death of Moti Lal, his legal representatives have been substituted in place of Moti Lal whereas, similarly, due to death of Ganesh Singh, the present Chairman Smt. Shakuntala Bhati has been brought on record to prosecute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff-landlord. The plaintiff had instituted suit against the defendants on the ground of default in payment of rent and consequential arrears as well as sub-letting and, during the pendency of the trial, since, after determination of rent under sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act'), the defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and, accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to strike out defence against eviction on the ground falling under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act vide its order dated 9.3.95. This order of striking out of defence of the defendants was challenged by way of appeal in the Court of District Judge, Udaipur but without any success. It further enabled the defendants to file a revision petition in this Court which was also, lastly, on 2.4.96 dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 9.3.95 passed by the trial Judge. Resultantly, so far as defence against eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, as determined by the Court, the same stands finally struck out and the petitioners cannot be allowed to agitate against the same.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, besides the ground of default in payment of rent, there are other grounds as well on the basis of which there is likelihood of success being achieved by the defendant-petitioners and the order of striking out defence of the defendants by the trial Court on 9.3.95 cannot travel beyond the striking out defence under Section 13(1)(a) of the Act and so the defendants are rightfully entitled to adduce evidence in support as well as in rebuttal of other issues for which they have been deprived of the opportunity and the trial Court, as is evidenced from the order-sheets dated 11.3.96 and 14.3.96 committed an illegality and serious impropriety while closing evidence of the defendants on 14.3.96 whereas, as borne out of order-sheet dated 11.3.96, file of the case itself was not traceable and instead the clerk concerned was directed that the file of the record be immediately traced out and the same be placed before the Court on 14.3.96. However, vide order dated 14.3.96, though the defendants were not required to have been present with their evidence yet their evidence was closed on the ground that upto 4.15 p.m. neither any witness nor counsel for the defendants had appeared before the Court and since previously several adjournments had already been granted, therefore, the evidence of the defendants was being closed. On the contrary, order-sheet dated 12.2.96 itself shows that the record had been received from the revisional Court after rejection of the revision petition and, therefore, the defendants were allowed to adduce their evidence on 11.3.96 and, hence, these self-contradictory orders also establish commission of serious irregularity in conducting the trial and, accordingly, the impugned order had resulted in miscarriage of justice besides irreparable injury to the petitioners.;