‘Rules of procedure are handmaids of justice’: Rajasthan High Court permits amendment to eviction petition

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has upheld an order of the Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur permitting a landlord to amend an eviction petition and exhibit documents that had accompanied the original filing in 2014 but remained unmarked owing to a clerical omission, holding that such a rectification is purely procedural in nature and causes no prejudice to the tenants.

Justice Farjand Ali, exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, observed that the amendment neither introduced a new cause of action nor altered the foundational character of the eviction proceedings, and that the tenants’ liberty to file an amended reply adequately safeguarded their interests.

The Court observed: “It is a settled canon of procedural jurisprudence that the rules of procedure are intended to serve as handmaids of justice and not as its mistress. Unless a proposed amendment results in manifest injustice, causes irremediable prejudice to the opposite party, or fundamentally transforms the nature of the proceedings, the Court ought to adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach so that the real dispute between the parties is adjudicated on its intrinsic merits.”

The petitioners, legal heirs of one Bharat Lakhani, had approached the High Court challenging an order dated Sep 18, 2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan, in an eviction petition instituted against them by their landlord, Vikas Garg, under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001.

The eviction proceedings, pending since 2014, saw the tenants initially remain absent, prompting an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to recall the ex parte proceedings, which the Tribunal allowed subject to costs of Rs.2,500. A subsequent review application filed by the tenants came to be dismissed.

The landlord thereafter moved two applications before the Tribunal — one under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking permission to exhibit the original postal receipt and acknowledgment due card that had accompanied the eviction petition but remained unmarked due to a clerical omission, and another under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend paragraph 12 of the petition to incorporate reference to these documents, which the landlord claimed had been left out due to a typographical error at the time of filing.

The tenants opposed both applications, contending that the matter had reached the stage of final arguments, that the amendment was sought after an inordinate lapse of time, and that allowing it at such an advanced stage would alter the complexion of the eviction petition and prejudice their accrued rights.

The Tribunal, by its order dated Sep 18, 2025, allowed both applications, recording that the documents had in fact been filed along with the original eviction petition on May 28, 2014, and that the omission was merely procedural. It held that the proposed amendment neither introduced any new pleading nor altered the foundation of the proceedings, and granted the tenants liberty to file an amended reply, prompting the writ petition before the High Court.

Dismissing the writ petition, the High Court held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible. It observed: “The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is intended to ensure that subordinate courts act within the bounds of their jurisdiction. It is neither an appellate jurisdiction nor one intended to substitute the Court’s own discretion merely because another view may also be possible. Unless the impugned order suffers from manifest perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or results in gross failure of justice, interference is wholly unwarranted.”

Holding that the Tribunal’s exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious but founded on settled jurisprudence governing amendment of pleadings, the Court found no jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality or perversity warranting interference. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, was accordingly dismissed, along with the stay petition and all pending applications, with no order as to costs.

Title: Lrs of Bharat Lakhani & Ors v Vikas Garg

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2830/2026

Citation: 2026:RJ-JD:29380

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Praveen Mohan Vyas

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Akshay Nagori