[2025:RJ-JP:31914] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3736/2025 Vimal Todi S/o Late Sh. G.d. Todi, Resident Of Plot No. 45, Barmeej Colony, Sethi Colony Ke Pass, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus Chandra Prakash Paliwal S/o Mahant Late Sh. Ganeshram Paliwal, Resident Of Plot No. 9, Shripaliwal Plaza, Rajasthali Ke Pass, Ajmeri Gate, M.i. Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Satish Chandra Mittal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 20.01.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.2, Jaipur Metro-I (for short “Tribunal”) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for leading evidence under Section 47 CPC has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rent eviction application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, “the Act of 2001”) was submitted against the petitioner by the respondents before the Tribunal and the said application was allowed and the petitioner was directed to handover the possession of the rental premises along-with arrears of rent. Counsel submits that the possession of the premises was handed over on 31.04.2022 and at the relevant time, there was an oral agreement between the parties that lump sum amount of [2025:RJ-JP:31914] (2 of 3) [CW-3736/2025] Rs.5,00,000/- would be paid as arrears to the respondents. Counsel submits that in terms of the same, a demand draft was prepared, but the same was not accepted by the respondents, hence, the amount was paid in cash by the petitioner, but in spite of above, the execution application has been submitted by the respondents for getting arrears of rent. Counsel submits that at this stage, an application under Section 47 CPC was submitted raising objections wherein a prayer was made by the petitioner to allow him to lead evidence, but the prayer for leading evidence has been declined by the Executing Court vide impugned ordr dated 20.01.2025 hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that no receipt has been produced on the record by the petitioner before the Executing Court to indicate that any amount was given to the respondent and the same was received by him, hence, the Tribunal has not committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner as the procedure contained under CPC are not applicable in the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Act of 2001. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court is not going into the controversy involved in this writ petition as to whether the petitioner has paid any cash amount to the respondents or not. [2025:RJ-JP:31914] (3 of 3) [CW-3736/2025] 6. This disputed fact is required to be adjudicated by the Executing Court in terms of the provisions contained under Sections 20 and 21 of the Act of 2001. 7. In case, an affidavit and counter-affidvait in this regard is submitted by both sides, appropriated orders would be passed by the Executing Court by deciding the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 47 CPC expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /40