In a landlord's revision petition challenging an order closing his evidence in an ejectment suit, the High Court allowed one more opportunity to lead evidence at the petitioner's risk, subject to payment of costs as a condition precedent.
Impugned order set aside; petitioner granted one more opportunity to lead evidence subject to payment of costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.7570 of 2011 Date of decision: 7.12.2011
Punit Wadhwa son of Sh. Subhash Wadhwa
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Manohar Lal Chandna and another
......Respondent(s)
CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
This is landlord's revision petition challenging the order dated
3.12.2011 whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court.
Challenging the aforesaid order, counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was not at fault and in fact, on the date of order, statement of one PW was recorded and moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-tenant who is yet to start his evidence.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as averments made in this revision petition.
No doubt, the Rent Controller in the impugned order has observed that the petitioner has availed number of opportunities for concluding his evidence, however, it is well settled that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are handmaid for administration of justice. It cannot be disputed that this is landlord's ejectment petition and the respondent-tenant is yet to start his evidence. Thus, it cannot be said that any prejudice will be caused to him at this stage. Moreover, the respondent can be very well compensated with payment of costs. Not only this, counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the petitioner shall conclude his entire evidence in one opportunity, if granted.
CR No.7570 of 2011
-2-
Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions and the facts of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs which are quantified at Rs.3,000/-.
It is made clear that payment of costs shall be condition precedent for allowing the petitioner one opportunity as aforesaid. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall bring his evidence before the Rent Controller on the date fixed at his own risk and responsibility.
Let the petitioner appear before the Rent Controller on the date fixed i.e 8.12.2011. On the said date, the petitioner shall tender the costs and on his doing so, the Rent Controller shall fix the date granting him one opportunity to lead his entire evidence as aforesaid.
Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.
December 7, 2011 ps
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Rent Controller's order closing the petitioner's evidence without prejudice to the respondent-tenant should be set aside and one more opportunity granted.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Punit Wadhwa
Manohar Lal Chandna
Rakesh Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
