Allowed

Om Prakash Gautam v. Smt Leela Devi and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2013CW/17675/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition against an order closing the petitioner's opportunity for deferred cross-examination, noting unique circumstances and granted an extension subject to a cost.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is allowed; the impugned order dated 16th July 2013 is quashed; petitioner is given opportunity to conclude cross-examination on the next date subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 cost

Om Prakash Gautam Vs Smt Leela Devi and Anr. — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17675/ 2013

¶5

Om Prakash Gautam Versus Smt. Leela Devi & Anr.

¶6

Date of Order : : 12^th November, 2013

¶7

HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶8

Mr.Kapil Gupta, for the petitioner.

¶9

< > < > < >

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

The petitioner, in the instant writ application, has challenged the order dated 16^th of July, 2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan, in Application No.279 of 2009 closing the opportunity of the petitioner for deferred cross-examination of the witness.

¶12

Briefly stated the material facts and particulars for appreciation of the controversy in the instant writ application are that the respondent (Smt. Leela Devi) instituted proceedings by an application, for eviction of the petitioner from the rented premises and also claimed, arrears of rent on account of default of payment of rent since August 2008. The statements of respondent (Smt. Leela Devi) were recorded by the Court below and the matter was posted for crossexamination to 25^th of February, 2013, but the cross-examination could not be concluded and was deferred to 27^th of April, 2013 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 16^th of July, 2013, on account of transfer of the Presiding Officer. On 16^th of July, 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner moved an application seeking extension of time to continue the cross-examination as the petitioner was out of

¶13

¶14

station, on account of some urgent business assignment. However, the Court below declined the application and closed the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, posting the matter for evidence of the opposite party. Be that as it may, on the same day i.e., 16^th of July, 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted an application to the effect that on account of bad weather and heavy rains, the petitioner could not travel back from Mathura to Jaipur and he has received instructions that by night intervening 16^th and 17^th of July, 2013, the petitioner would reach Jaipur and will put in his appearance before the Court below on the next day i.e. 17^th of July, 2013 in the morning and the counsel would conclude the cross-examination on the

¶15

next day.

¶16

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record i.e., application moved on 16^th of July, 2013 detailing out the facts of bad weather and heavy rains, which prevented the petitioner from travelling from Mathura to Jaipur and further, a specific undertaking to appear before the Court on the very next date in the morning.

¶17

It has been further detailed out in the application that the petitioner did seek any unnecessary adjournment. The proceedings in the matter could not take place on account of transfer of the Presiding Officer and the next date fixed was on 16^th of July, 2013.

¶18

Having regard to the peculiar facts, circumstances and material available on record, more particularly the application preferred on 16^th of July, 2013, which was posted for reply and arguments to 20^th of September, 2013, with explicit undertaking by learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner to cross-examine the witness on the next date i.e. 17^th of July, 2013; I deem it just and proper to grant one

¶19

¶20

opportunity to the petitioner on the next date fixed before the Court below to conclude the deferred cross-examination.

¶21

In the result, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 16^th of July, 2013 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan in Case No.279/ 2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is allowed an opportunity to continue and conclude the cross-examination of the witness on the next date fixed before the Court below, subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/ - (Rupees : One Thousand Only).

¶22

In view of the final adjudication on the writ application, the stay

¶23

application stands closed.

¶24

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) , J.

¶25

Su n il/ P.A.

¶26

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d g m en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶27

( Su n il Solan k i) P.A.

Om Prakash Gautam v. Smt Leela Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Gautam v. Smt Leela Devi and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.T.O.Wc and Lt,Bhilwara Vs M/S B.Sinhaiya and Company

Badri Vs State

Kedar Vs State

Nemi Chand Choudhary Vs State Local Self Dep Ors.

Sajid Hussain Chhipa Vs Secretary R P S C and Anr.

Nandpal Vs Murari and Ors.