CMA/2232/2022 of SMT. CHAND DEVI WIDOW LATE SHRI SHOBHA CHANDRA CHAJJED Vs VISHNU PRASAD GARG ALIES VISHNU PRAKASH GARG S/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL on 28 July 2026

Order

28/07/2026

1. Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been filed by legal representatives of original plaintiff (now deceased), feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 27.05.2022, passed by

(2 of 5) [CMA-2232/2022] Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Ajmer in Civil First Appeal No.33/2017 whereby and whereunder decree of eviction dated 25.08.2006 passed in favour of original plaintiff in Civil Suit No.199/2002 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) North, Ajmer, has been set aside and the eviction suit has been remanded to decide the same afresh.

2. When this appeal came up on Board on 15.09.2022, record of Courts below was summoned and since record has been sent to this Court, no proceedings in furtherance to the impugned judgment of remand were commenced before the trial Court.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal in brief is that the original plaintiff instituted a civil suit for rent and eviction on 26.08.2002 on the ground of default, material alterations, bonafide and reasonable necessity under the provisions of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. The eviction suit was contested by respondent-defendant. After recording evidence of parties and conducting a full trial, eviction suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 25.08.2006 on the ground of bonafide necessity. Thereagainst, respondent-defendant preferred regular Civil First Appeal. In the appeal, respondent-defendant filed two applications under Order 41 Rule 27 and one application under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC. All three applications were heard along with appeal. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 27.05.2022, allowed all three applications of respondent- defendant and consequently set aside the judgment and decree of eviction dated 25.08.2006 and remanded the civil suit to the trial Court, to decide afresh, with certain directions. The operative

(3 of 5) [CMA-2232/2022] portion of the judgment of remand dated 27.05.2022 reads as under:- "पररिणणामततः अपपीलणारर/प्रततवणादपी ककी ओरीरि ससे प्रत्यणारर/वणादद्यणा ककी तवरुद प्रस्ततुत ककी गकीईकी ्य ् अपपील स्वपीककीणारि ककी जजाणाककीरि अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य दद्णारिणा पणाररित त्थणर््य व तडिक दद्थणाादककीत 25-08-2006 ककीको अपणास्त दककी्यणा जजाणाककीरि पतणावलपी पतु्थतः प्रततप्र तेत ककीरि आद तशत दककी्यणा जजाणातणा ्ह दककी अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य ससेवर्प्ररम ्य ् स्पष् उल्ल खथ ककीरिरर दककी अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य ककी ससेमक प्रस्ततुत दको वणादो मरर ससे दककीससे वणाद-पत ककी आीनणारि परि त्थणर््य पणाररित दककी्यणा गकी्यणा ्ह, ततपशणातत् प्रददशत दस्तणाव जजाणात ककी ससेाबाीन मरर तस्रत स्पष् ककीरित हु त्थि त्थदककी्यणात ककीणा्यम ककीरि प्रततवणादपी ककी ओरीरि ससे प्रस्ततुत प्रणारर््थणा पत अातगकीर्त आद श 41 त्थ्य म 27 ससेपी पपी ससेपी ककी मणाध्यम ससे ररिककीककडिर् परि तल्य गकी्य दस्तणाव जजाणात ककी ससेाबाीन मरर ससेणाक्य ल खथबुद ककीरि ्थ्य तससेरि ससे त्थषककीेर् पणाररित ककीरिरर। (अ) आ्यणा वणादद्यणा न्य्यणा्यणाल्य मरर वणाद-पत ककी ससेमरर््थ मरर ससेणाक्य ् ततु उलपतस्रत ्थ ्ह हईकी, ्थणा ्पी उलससेककीणा मतुुत्यणारि्थणामणा अरवणा प्रणातीनककीकत पत ्पी प श हआ ्ह, तरणा इससे तथ्य ककीणा वणाद ककी गकीतुणणावगकीतुण परि प्रभणाव? (ब) आ्यणा वहककीत्पककी पररिससेरि प्रततवणादपी ककीको उलपल्ीन ्को गकी्यणा ्ह औरि प्रततवणादपी उलससे पररिससेरि मरर अप्थणा वपनवससेणा्य ककीरि रि ्णा ्ह, तजजाससे ककीणारिण प्रततवणादपी वणादरस्त दककीरिणा्य शतुदणा पररिससेरि ससे ब दखथलपी ककीको उलत्तरिदणा्यपी ्ह? अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य त्थककी ससेाु्य णा 1 व 3 ककी ससेाबाीन मरर अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य ककीणा पतणावलपी परि उलपल्ीन व आद श 41 त्थ्य म 27 ससेपरठत ीनणारिणा 151 ससेपी पपी ससेपी ककी प्रणारर््थणा पतो ककी मणाध्यम ससे ररिककीककडिर् परि तल्य गकी्य दस्तणाव जजा ककी ससेाबाीन मरर ससेणाक्य ल खथबुद ककीरित हु ्थ्य तससेरि ससे ककीणारिणो ककीणा उल्ल खथ ककीरित हु अप्थणा त्थषककीेर् पणाररित ककीरिरर। त्थककी ससेाु्य णा 4 जजाको तब्थणा अतभवच्थ ककी ककीणा्यम ककी गकीईकी ्ह ककी ससेाबाीन मरर भपी तवतीन ससेसमत आद श पणाररित ककीरिरर। खथचणार् पकककीणारिणा्थ अप्थणा अप्थणा व ््थ ककीरिररगकी । इससे त्थणर््य ककी प्रतत ककी ससेणार तवदद्णा्थ अीनपी्थस्र न्य्यणा्यणाल्य ककी पतणावलपी अतवलसब ललौटटाणाईकी जजाणाव ।" The judgment of remand dated 27.05.2022 has been impugned in this appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants argued that the impugned judgment of remand is erroneous and the Appellate Court itself could have considered the additional documents placed on record by the respondent-defendant under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, as much as the additional issues framed by the Appellate Court are unwarranted, since both issues must be

(4 of 5) [CMA-2232/2022] considered to be included in the issue of bonafide and reasonable necessity, comparative hardship, which were already framed. Hence, his submission is that the impugned judgment of remand is liable to be quashed and first appeal itself ought to have been dismissed, affirming the judgment and decree of eviction dated 25.08.2006.

5. However, during course of arguments, having instructions from the appellants, counsel for appellants submits that in case this Hon'ble Court is not inclined to grant indulgence on merits in the judgment of remand, appellants would be satisfied and not press this appeal on merits, if appropriate directions are issued to decide the suit expeditiously and within stipulated period as per judgment of remand.

6. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-defendant does not have any objection to issue any direction to decide the suit for eviction expeditiously, in terms of the judgment of remand to sustain the impugned judgment.

7. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment clearly reveals that the Appellate Court has assigned reasons to remand the suit for recording evidence on the additional documents so also on the issues framed by the Appellate Court. Needless to observe that if the subsequent events substantially affect the necessity set out by the plaintiff, same can be taken into consideration. Having gone through the judgment impugned, this Court does not find any good reason to grant indulgence in the impugned judgment of remand which is a reasoned and speaking judgment and therefore, accepts the alternative prayer, made by and on behalf

(5 of 5) [CMA-2232/2022] of appellants, which has not been opposed by the counsel for respondent.

8. As a result, instant appeal is hereby dismissed as not press and the impugned judgment of remand dated 27.05.2022 is hereby sustained.

9. However, in view of the fact that the suit for rent and eviction was instituted way back on 26.08.2002, wherein the issues of bonafide and reasonable necessity of the shop in question is involved, therefore, same deserves to be decided expeditiously, hence, it is hereby directed that the trial Court shall make an endeavor to decide the suit afresh, as directed by the Appellate Court in the judgment of remand dated 27.05.2022 preferably within a period of one year from the next date, fixed by the trial Court after receipt of record from this Court, if possible.

10. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 10.08.2026.

11. It is expected that both parties shall cooperate with the trial Court to expedite the trial and to conclude the same within the period as stipulated hereinabove.

12. Record of the trial Court be sent back forthwith.

13. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance. (SUDESH BANSAL),J 51/NITIN