In a civil revision, the High Court dismissed the challenge by a tenant against the appointment of a private architect as an expert witness to inspect premises in an ejectment suit, holding no interference was called for.
The petition challenging the appointment of the architect was disposed of; no interference granted.
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.
Civil Revision No. 1622 of 2014
-1-
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1622 of 2014 Date of Decision: 28.3.2014.
Pawan Kumar
.......Petitioner
Versus
Lalit Chaudhary alias Lalit Kishore
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. M.S.Dhami, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate for the respondent.
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 10.2.2014 (Annexure P-5) whereby Vikas Chopra, Architect was allowed to inspect the demised premises and submit his report.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller had erred in appointing a private architect as an expert to inspect the premises in question.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that Vikas Chopra, Architect is the expert witness of the landlord and is sought to be examined by the landlord.
In the present case, respondent has moved the ejectment petition against the petitioner under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. Respondent moved an application that a technical expert be appointed to inspect the
Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.03 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 1622 of 2014
-2-
premises in question and submit his report. Learned counsel for the respondent-landlord has submitted that Vikas Chopra, Architect has been appointed as an expert as requested by the respondent-landlord as his witness. Landlord is at liberty to examine any expert in support of his case. In these circumstances, the fact that the Rent Controller has appointed Vikas Chopra, Architect to inspect the demised premises and submit his report, does not call for any interference. The said architect is sought to be examined by the landlord as his witness. Petitioner would be at liberty to rebut the said evidence by examining his expert.
In these circumstance, no interference by this Court is
called for.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE
March 28, 2014 Gurpreet
Singh Gurpreet 2014.04.03 11:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of a private architect as an expert witness by the Rent Controller calling for interference by the High Court in a revision petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pawan Kumar
Lalit Chaudhary alias Lalit Kishore
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
