CW 7935/10 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7935/2010 Priyadhan Lal & Anr. Vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Ors. Date Of Order :: 09/07/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Sudesh Bansal, for petitioners. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant assailing the order dt.10.5.2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal whereby the application filed u/s.21 of the Act,2001 seeking permission for filing sub- rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the non- petitioner-applicant has been rejected under the order impugned. It appears from the record that after the eviction application was filed by the non- petitioner, the present petitioner filed the written statement and rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the non-petitioner. At this stage, petitioner sought further permission to file sub-rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the non-petitioner and prayed that since new facts have been narrated/averred by the non-petitioner in their rejoinder, at this stage if opportunity is not afforded to the petitioner for submitting sub-rejoinder to controvert those facts, it will cause prejudice and this action is in violation of principles of natural CW 7935/10 (2) justice. It goes without saying that rejoinder filed by the non-petitioner-applicant is nothing but clarifying the averments of the written statement filed by the petitioner- defendant and in these circumstances the learned Tribunal taking note of the objection being raised by the petitioner declined to grant permission for filing of sub-rejoinder to the rejoinder filed by the non-petitioner and observed that after examining the original application, written statement and rejoinder, no new facts have come on record, which requires granting permission to the petitioner for filing sub-rejoinder thereto. Taking note thereof, the application filed by the petitioner u/s.21 of the Act,2001 seeking permission for filing sub-rejoinder was rejected by the Tribunal. This Court has heard the counsel for petitioner and perused the order impugned and find no manifest error being committed by the Tribunal while passing the order impugned which may call for interference. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi),J. VS Shekhawat/-p.2 7935cw10Jul09FnlDsms.doc