Procedural amendments rectifying inadvertent clerical omissions without altering the suit's character are permissible under supervisory jurisdiction.

The respondent-landlord instituted eviction proceedings against the petitioners (legal representatives of the deceased tenant Bharat Lakhani) under the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge (Rent Tribunal), Jodhpur Metropolitan, in Petition No. 270/2014.

The petitioners initially remained absent, resulting in ex parte proceedings which were later recalled under Order IX Rule 7 CPC subject to costs of Rs. 2,500/-; their subsequent review application was dismissed.

Thereafter, the landlord preferred two applications: (i) under Section 21 of the Act of 2001 seeking assignment of exhibit marks to the original postal receipt and acknowledgment due card — documents which had admittedly accompanied the eviction petition on 28.05.2014 but remained unmarked due to a clerical omission; and (ii) under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of paragraph 12 of the eviction petition to incorporate reference to those documents, omitted due to an inadvertent typographical error.

The petitioners opposed both applications, contending that the matter had reached final arguments, the amendment was sought after inordinate delay, and allowing it would alter the complexion of the eviction petition and prejudice their accrued rights.

The Tribunal, by order dated 18.09.2025, allowed both applications, holding the omission merely procedural, the amendment introducing no new pleading, and granted the petitioners liberty to file an amended reply.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 seeking quashing of that order.

1. Whether the Rent Tribunal's order allowing exhibit-marking of documents under Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and amendment of the eviction petition under Order VI Rule 17 CPC suffered from jurisdictional infirmity, patent illegality, or perversity warranting interference in supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.

2. Whether the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action, altered the foundational character of the eviction proceedings, or occasioned irretrievable prejudice divesting the petitioners of vested rights.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution of India, under which supervisory jurisdiction is circumscribed: it is neither appellate in nature nor a forum to substitute the High Court's discretion merely because another view is possible; interference is warranted only upon manifest perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or gross failure of justice.

The Court applied the settled principles governing Order VI Rule 17 CPC: amendments of pleadings are to be liberally allowed where necessary for determining the real controversy, provided the amendment does not introduce a fundamentally new or inconsistent case, does not divest the opposite party of vested or accrued rights, and any prejudice can be compensated by affording an opportunity to meet the amended pleadings.

The Court further applied Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and invoked the settled canon that rules of procedure are "handmaids of justice and not its mistress," such that hyper-technical objections cannot defeat adjudication on merits absent irretrievable prejudice.

The Court found it undisputed that the postal receipt and acknowledgment due card had accompanied the eviction petition at its inception on 28.05.2014; accordingly, the landlord neither sought to introduce fresh documents nor attempted to improve his case through additional evidence — the amendment merely incorporated, in paragraph 12, a reference to documents already on record, a rectification "essentially procedural" in character.

Applying the liberal amendment standard, the Court held the petitioners had failed to demonstrate any real or substantial prejudice: the amendment neither changed the character of the eviction proceedings nor introduced a fresh cause of action, while the Tribunal adequately safeguarded them by expressly reserving liberty to file an amended reply and contest the documents, meaning no vested right was impaired.

Turning to the Article 227 threshold, the Court held that the Tribunal's discretion was neither arbitrary nor capricious but founded on sound judicial principles, and that none of the contingencies justifying supervisory interference — patent perversity, manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, arbitrariness, or palpable failure of justice — were attracted.

The impugned order thus subserved the ends of justice by enabling adjudication of the real controversy rather than allowing the lis to fail on inadvertent procedural lapses.

The writ petition, being devoid of merit, was dismissed; the stay petition and all pending application(s) stood disposed of; and there was no order as to costs.