1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Shahida Begam & Ors. V/s. Ram Narayan Bansal & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.10233/2010) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :: August 5, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. R.P. Vijay for the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 20th May, 2010 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Kota, whereby the application filed by the petitioners for excluding the documents submitted with the rejoinder to the reply submitted by the respondent and for appointment of a Commissioner for local inspection has been rejected by the learned Tribunal. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1, Ram Narayan Bansal had filed a suit for eviction on 24.10.2008 under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 against the petitioners. The petitioners filed their written statements and denied the averments made in the plaint. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed a rejoinder to the reply and enclosed certain documents. On 20.05.2010, the petitioners filed an application for excluding the documents which were enclosed 2 with the rejoinder from the record. They contended that although the respondent No.1 was entitled to file a rejoinder, but he could not file any documents, additional affidavits and also the documents which were annexed with the rejoinder. The petitioner also filed another application stating therein that according to respondent No.1 in his rejoinder the petitioners alleged that the photographs submitted by the petitioners in the reply is an outcome of trick photography. In order to dispel, this is an allegation, it is imperative that a Commissioner be appointed. However, after hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioners vide its order dated 20.05.2010. Hence, this petition. Mr. R.P. Vijay, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that along with the rejoinder, the respondent No.1 wanted to submit certain documents which cannot be permitted to be done as these documents were readily available with him at the time of filing of the suit. Thus, the petitioners were justified in requesting that only the rejoinder should not be taken on record. Secondly, since there was some dispute as to whether the defendant was residing in the property in dispute and since the respondent No.1 had made an allegation that the photographs submitted by the petitioners were outcome of trick of photography, the learned Judge should have allowed the application for appointment of a Commissioner. By rejecting the application 3 filed by the petitioners, the tribunal has caused a grave injustice to the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that the right to file rejoinder has been given under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. Therefore, the learned tribunal was certainly justified in permitting the plaintiff to file the rejoinder and to file the documents therewith. Moreover, even if an allegation has been made by the respondent No.1 that the photographs submitted by the petitioners were the outcome of trick photography, it is for the respondent No.1 as the plaintiff to establish the same. Furthermore, the petitioners, as the defendants, would have ample opportunity to submit their evidence to prove the fact that the photographs were not the outcome of trick photography, but were duly photographed by the concerned photographer. Therefore, non-appointment of a Commissioner does not prejudice the petitioners' cause. Hence, there is nothing illegal and perverse in the impugned order. This petition is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. A.Asopa/-