HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10944/2025 Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Murarilal Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Shop No. Cgs-19, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Sharda Gupta W/o Shri Omprakash Gupta, Aged About 74 Years, R/o C-310, Hans Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Dinesh Gorasiya S/o Shri Vijendra Kumar Sharma, Shop No. -Cgs-19, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur. Second Address R-12. Narendera Nagar Extension, Jaipur (Raj.) Third Address- Village Gudhagorji, Distt.- Jhunjhunu (Raj.), Another Address-M-51, Shiv Path, Ramnagar, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipul Jain For Respondent(s) : JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the Rent Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the Act of 2001’) has been rejected. 2. By way of filing an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the petitioner made a prayer before the Tribunal for rejection of the application filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 9 of the Act of 2001 on the ground that as per (2 of 2) [CW-10944/2025] the documents submitted by the respondent, she is suffering from Dementia, Alzheimer and Senile disease, hence, she is of an unsound mind and has no authority to file the suit in terms of the Order 32 of CPC. Counsel submits that without deciding the said application on merits, the same has been rejected by imposing cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner by holding that the petitioner wanted to delay the disposal of the application submitted by the respondent. Counsel submits that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner, rather the delay was caused by the respondent in the pending proceedings. Counsel submits that since the matter has reached at the final stage, so liberty be granted to the petitioner to raise all these objection at the stage of final arguments before the Tribunal, but the cost imposed upon the petitioner be waived. 3. Considering the aforesaid limited submission made by counsel for the petitioner and looking to the order-sheets annexed with the writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was no reason or occasion available with the Tribunal to impose cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioner while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. 4. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the liberty aforesaid. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/22