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

New Delhi, India Jul 10, 2026 ALN: 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. The court held that such a rectification is purely procedural in nature and causes no prejudice to the tenants involved in the case.

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. The court emphasized that the tenants’ liberty to file an amended reply adequately safeguarded their interests, ensuring that their rights were not unduly compromised by the procedural adjustments made by the landlord.

The Court articulated a fundamental principle of procedural jurisprudence, stating, “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.” This perspective reinforces the notion that procedural rules should facilitate justice rather than obstruct it.

The petitioners in this case are the legal heirs of one Bharat Lakhani, who had approached the High Court challenging an order dated September 18, 2025, passed by the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan. This order was part of an eviction petition instituted against them by their landlord, Vikas Garg, under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001. This act was enacted to regulate the renting of residential and commercial properties, aiming to balance the interests of landlords and tenants.

The eviction proceedings had been pending since 2014, during which the tenants initially remained absent from the proceedings. This prompted the landlord to file an application under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to recall the ex parte proceedings, which the Tribunal allowed subject to costs of Rs. 2,500. Following this, a review application filed by the tenants was dismissed, further complicating the tenants' position in the ongoing legal battle.

After the dismissal of the review application, the landlord filed two applications before the Tribunal. The first application was under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 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. The second application sought to amend paragraph 12 of the eviction petition to incorporate references to these documents, which the landlord claimed had been left out due to a typographical error at the time of filing.

The tenants vehemently opposed both applications, arguing that the matter had reached the stage of final arguments and that the amendment was sought after an inordinate lapse of time. They contended that allowing such amendments at such an advanced stage would alter the complexion of the eviction petition and prejudice their accrued rights. This opposition highlights the tension often present in eviction proceedings, where tenants may feel that their rights are being undermined by procedural technicalities.

In its order dated September 18, 2025, the Tribunal allowed both applications. It recorded that the documents in question had indeed been filed along with the original eviction petition on May 28, 2014, and that the omission was merely procedural in nature. The Tribunal concluded that the proposed amendment neither introduced any new pleading nor altered the foundation of the proceedings. Importantly, it granted the tenants the liberty to file an amended reply, thereby allowing them to respond to the landlord's claims with the newly included evidence.

Following the Tribunal's decision, the tenants filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking to overturn the Tribunal's order. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not an appellate jurisdiction and cannot be invoked merely because another view is possible. The Court articulated, “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.”

This statement underscores the limited scope of the High Court's review powers, which are intended to ensure that lower courts adhere to legal standards without substituting their judgment for that of the lower courts unless there is a clear legal error.

In its ruling, the High Court found that the Tribunal’s exercise of discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious but was instead founded on settled jurisprudence governing the amendment of pleadings. The Court concluded that there was no jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, or perversity that warranted interference in the Tribunal's decision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, along with the accompanying stay petition and all pending applications, with no order as to costs.

This case illustrates the complexities involved in eviction proceedings, particularly in terms of procedural issues that can significantly affect the rights of tenants and landlords alike. The Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, aims to provide a framework for resolving disputes between landlords and tenants, balancing the need for landlords to regain possession of their properties with the rights of tenants to secure housing. The High Court's decision reinforces the principle that procedural rules should facilitate justice and not be used as a means to deny it.

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