Allowed

Navdeep Singh v. M/S Manmohan Sales Corporation and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Mar 2012CR/1545/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a revision petition against the Rent Controller's order closing evidence. Citing Ram Piari, the court held that technicalities should not hinder justice, noting the petitioner's casual approach and lack of prejudice to the tenant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order closing evidence quashed; petitioner ordered to pay Rs.5000/- costs and produce witnesses on next hearing.

Navdeep Singh Vs M/S Manmohan Sales Corporation… — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CR No.1545 of 2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1545 of 2012 Date of decision:12.03.2012

¶4

Navdeep Singh ......Petitioner Vs M/s Manmohan Sales Corporation & another ......Respondents

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA

¶6

Present: Mr.B.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. G.S.SANDHAWALIA J.(ORAL)

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the landlord-petitioner. Challenge is to the order dated 08.02.2012 whereby the evidence of the landlord was closed after the cross-examination of AW3, Navdeep Singh. 2. The Rent Controller, Amritsar has noticed that no other AW's is present and the issues were framed on 15.05.2009 and the landlord has availed ample opportunities but failed to conclude his evidence and the Rent Controller, Amritsar passed the impugned order closing the evidence of the landlord.

¶8

The counsel for the petitioner points out that the affidavits of 2 AWs were tendered on 30.09.2009 and their cross-examination had been deferred and on 12.01.2010, one of them had been cross-examined and the case was adjourned to 12.04.2010. On the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 18.08.2010 and another date was requested on the said date. The case was then adjourned to 03.02.2011 and on that day, the Presiding Officer of the Court was again on leave and the case was adjourned to 09.05.2011, and again, the AWs were not present. The case was adjourned to 09.06.2011 and again, AWs were not present. Similar was the position on 06.09.2011 and the case was adjourned to 22.09.2011 when one AW was examined in chief and his cross-examination was deferred on the request of the counsel. Accordingly, AW1 was bound

¶9

¶10

CR No.1545 of 2011

¶11

down for 25.10.2011 for cross-examination and on the said date, no one was present and the case was adjourned to 08.02.2012 and the impugned orders have been passed.

¶12

From the sequence of events, it is clear that the landlord has tendered his evidence and produced three witnesses and only one AW, viz, Navdeep Singh has been examined. There is no doubt that the landlord has taken the proceedings very casually and not ensured the presence of his witnesses for the cross-examination. This Court in Ram Piari Vs Collector, Sub Division, Abohar 1993 (3) PLR 36 has held that the rules of procedures are hand-maids of justice and technicality should not come in the way to prejudice any of the parties. On two occasions also, the Presiding Officer of the Court had been on leave. It would be unfair if the landlord is not allowed to bring on record the evidence in order to pursue his ejectment application. The delay, if any, is at the risk of the landlord himself and the tenant is not prejudiced in any manner. Accordingly, keeping in view the interest of justice, the present revision petition is allowed subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs which shall be paid on the next date of hearing before the Rent Controller. It is also made clear that the landlord shall ensure that his witnesses are present for crossexamination on the next date of hearing. Notice of this revision petition is not being issued to the tenant to avoid delay and unnecessary expenses to him and the presence of his counsel would not necessarily be helpful for passing the order which would, in his presence, remain the same.

¶13

Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶14

(G.S.SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE

¶15

12.03.2012 sailesh

Navdeep Singh v. M/S Manmohan Sales Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Navdeep Singh v. M/S Manmohan Sales Corporation and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajinder Kumar Malik Vs Ranjit Kaur

Sunil Kumar Vs Lal Chand and Ors.

Dhirender Gupta Vs M.S. Rana

Jawahar Lal Dutt Vs Ramesh Chander Bajan

Bachittar Singh Vs Jaswant Singh Saggu

Arun Kumar and Ors. Vs Preet Mohinder Singh