// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4007/2008 Virumal S/o Shri Rijhu Mal Versus Gulab Chand S/o late Shri Kundan Lal Pathak and Another Date of Order ::: 30.06.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahesh Narayan Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The applicant-landlord filed an application for eviction before the Rent Tribunal, Kota, and, during the pendency of that application, the respondent filed an application under Order 11 Rules 12 and 14 of the CPC for issue of necessary direction to the applicant to produce certain documents as mentioned in the application. The application was contested by the opposite-party by filing a written-reply. The trial court, vide its order dated 27th February, 2008, rejected the application. The said order has been challenged by the respondent in the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the petitioner // 2 // contended that the trial court has committed an illegality in rejecting the application as even if the so-called document i.e. mark-sheet was not issued to the applicant's son then the application should not have been dismissed but it should have been deferred, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the reasons assigned by the trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner. The application for eviction was filed on the ground of bona-fide necessity stating therein that the applicant's son Sahil Pathak is unemployed. The case of the respondent was that the applicant's son is not unemployed but he is studying at Indore and he has also passed the said course, therefore, on the date of filing of the application the applicant's son was not unemployed. The trial court has considered the reply filed on behalf of the opposite-party wherein it was mentioned that the concerned Institution only issues the certificate of the said course and not the mark-sheet and the said certificate has not been issued so far to applicant's son. After considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties the trial court // 3 // has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order so as to interfere with the same while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.852/2008 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4007/2008 Virumal S/o Shri Rijhu Mal Versus Gulab Chand S/o late Shri Kundan Lal Pathak and Another Date of Order ::: 30.06.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Mahesh Narayan Sharma, Counsel for petitioner #### By the Court:- Consequent upon dismissal of the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive and the same is also dismissed. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//