Skip to content


Hari Chand Vs. Ishar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1034 of 1985
Judge
Reported inAIR1986P& H151
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 6, Rule 5
AppellantHari Chand
Respondentishar Singh
Cases ReferredAdvocate v. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan
Excerpt:
.....of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 12, 1985, whereby the landlord was directed to furnish better particulars as contemplated under o. were not applicable in the proceedings before the rent controller and, therefore, no such order could be passed directing the landlord to furnish better particulars under o. , are such which contemplate a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading;j.c. gupta, j.1. this petition is directed against the order of the rent controller dt. mar. 12, 1985, whereby the landlord was directed to furnish better particulars as contemplated under o. 6, r. 5, civil p. c., on the application filed on behalf of the tenant.2. the learned counsel for the pt contended that the said provisions of the civil p. c. were not applicable in the proceedings before the rent controller and, therefore, no such order could be passed directing the landlord to furnish better particulars under o. 6, r. 5, civil p. c. in support of this contention, reference was made to ram dass v. smt. sukhdev kaur, air 1981 punj and har 301 and dev pal kashyap, advocate v. sant ram narinder mohan, cloth merchants, (1983)2 ren j 234 (punj & hara).3. after hearing the learned counsel.....
Judgment:

J.C. Gupta, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller dt. Mar. 12, 1985, whereby the landlord was directed to furnish better particulars as contemplated under O. 6, R. 5, Civil P. C., on the application filed on behalf of the tenant.

2. The learned counsel for the pt contended that the said provisions of the Civil P. C. were not applicable in the proceedings before the Rent Controller and, therefore, no such order could be passed directing the landlord to furnish better particulars under O. 6, R. 5, Civil P. C. In support of this contention, reference was made to Ram Dass v. Smt. Sukhdev Kaur, AIR 1981 Punj and Har 301 and Dev Pal Kashyap, Advocate v. Sant Ram Narinder Mohan, Cloth Merchants, (1983)2 Ren J 234 (Punj & Hara).

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this petition. The authorities relied upon have no applicability to the facts of the present case. The Rent Controller being persona designata is entitled to adopt any procedure which is found by him to be in the interest of justice unless it is prohibited by any statute or otherwise. The provisions of O. 6, R. 5, Civil P. C., are such which contemplate a further and better statement of the nature of the claim or defence, or further and better particulars of any matter stated in any pleading; and the same can in all cases be ordered, upon such terms, as to costs and otherwise, as may be just. Such a procedure could certainly be adopted by the Rent Controller in order to do justice between the parties. The Rent Restriction Act does not contain any bar to adopt this procedure. Moreover, certain provisions of the Civil P. C. are such which are inherent with the constitution of a Tribunal or a Court. The provisions of O. 6, R. 5, Civil P. C., are of such a nature. In Circumstances I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is consequently dismissed with costs. The parties have been directed to appear before the Rent Controller on Sept. 13, 1985.

4. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //