AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice Poonam Srivastav
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as well as the respondent. The orders impugned are 19th April, 2011, 24th May, 2011 and 22nd July, 2011 passed by the Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 16 of 2010.
A suit is instituted on the ground of personal need after the respondent-landlord claimed to have purchased the suit property. The petitioners preferred a composite application seeking leave as well as written statement to the plaint filed at the behest of the respondent.
The submission of Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioners is that initially the written statement was taken on record, but subsequently since the court below was of the view that no separate application for seeking leave for filing written statement was filed, although a separate application for seeking leave for filing written statement was filed later on 13th June, 2011. Learned counsel has brought to my notice that the written statement preferred initially, which was a joint application, seeking leave as well as written statement was already taken on record.
Both the counsel have tried to stress only the disputed question whether the written statement could be accepted without a leave application, but the main proposition involved in the instant writ petition is that a suit for eviction has been preferred on the ground of bonafide need and the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed. The submission of learned counsel is that there are arguable question and, therefore, it is sufficient for granting leave and leave could not be refused by the court below and the written statement was liable to be taken on record and accepted before the court proceeds with the trial. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Vs. Nikhil Mazumdar, . It is a settled principle that if any fact is brought on record by the defendant which requires evidence, investigation and trial, the leave to contest the suit must necessarily be granted. In the cases in which the arguable grounds have been raised by the defendants and the case is apparently triable, leave to contest the suit has to be granted.
In view of the principle laid down by this Court in Vikas Kumar (Supra), I am of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 19th April, 2011, 24th May, 2011 and 22nd July, 2011 passed by the Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title (Eviction) Suit No. 16 of 2010 are liable to be quashed. The defendants shall take all the points before the court of Munsif and the learned court shall proceed with the trial expeditiously.
Mr. Priya Ranjan Bhagat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord submits that the trial should proceed expeditiously, since the suit is of the year 2011 and it is still at the stage of pleadings. In view of this assertion, I direct the trial court to ensure that the trial proceeds as early as possible with due opportunity to the respective parties to lead evidence but the court is cautioned not to grant undue adjournments since it will hamper the very cause of the suit. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is dismissed.