MEENA SAKHARANI Vs. KANHAIYALAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed on record, this Court does not find any reason to consider interference in the impugned order dt. 21.04.2010 whereby the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara has declined the prayer as made by the petitioner, substituted as legal representative of the original defendant for filing separate affidavit and documents. During the course of submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out that in fact, after the order impugned, the matter proceeded further in evidence and an order was passed on 20.08.2010 that was sought to be challenged by the petitioner with other legal representatives of the original defendant in CWP No. 9820/2010 wherein this Court has made specific observations that the petitioners had been trying to avoid the proceedings and to prolong the same for one reason and another; and this Court found that the learned Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara had rightly closed the defendant -petitioners evidence.

(2.) THE order dt. 21.04.2010 was passed by the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara does not suffer from any jurisdictional error nor leads to failure of justice. The Tribunal has rightly made the order declining the petitioner any liberty to take a stand beyond that of the original defendant.