Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raminder Kaur vs Kulwant Kaur & Ors on 24 September, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5795 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: 24.09.2013
Raminder Kaur ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Kulwant Kaur & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.
This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 13.9.2012 whereby his application for appointing building expert to visit the demised property, which has been newly constructed, has been rejected.
It is not in dispute that earlier also a Local Commissioner was appointed at the behest of the petitioner, who has submitted the report.
In the instant application, the petitioner has submitted that the building has become unfit and unsafe for human habitation and has fallen down and the respondent-tenant by taking the benefit of holidays, has reconstructed the demised property and for that reason, a Building Expert be appointed to inspect the demised property.
The aforesaid prayer has been rejected while passing the impugned order, which reads thus:
"Now after considering the pleadings as well as arguments of both the parties this court has found that earlier Local Commissioner was appointed who was directed to visit the spot and take the Saini Pushpinder photographs as per actual and factual position. 2013.09.30 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.5795 of 2013 (O&M) -2- Photographs are on record. The case is fixed for evidence of petitioner. At this stage allowing any Building Expert appears to by repetition of the finding on those circumstances. When once the report has come on record then why the court will again allow any Local Commissioner. Though in this application the term has been mentioned as building expert but the same person can be examined by applicant as the witness. There is no need to pass separate order giving permission to him (Building Expert) to visit the spot and give his detailed report. It is open for the petitioner to call any witness to prove his own case. Application stands dismissed. Case is adjourned to 20.10.2012 for evidence of the petitioner."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.
Admittedly, it is the case of the petitioner-landlord that the building which was alleged to be unfit and unsafe for human habitation has fallen down and taking benefit of the holidays, the respondent has reconstructed the same and for that purpose, he wants the report of the Building Expert. Once it is the case of the petitioner himself that the building had fallen down and has been reconstructed, there is hardly anything to be noticed by the Building Expert as sought to be appointed, for the simple reason that it is for the petitioner to produce evidence to the effect that building had actually fallen down and thereafter, he had reconstructed the same.
Saini Pushpinder2013.09.30 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CR No.5795 of 2013 (O&M) -3-
Moreover, it is well settled that the Courts are not meant to collect the remaining evidence on behalf of the litigant. Even otherwise, the impugned order was passed on 13.9.2012 and the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of one year without explaining the delay.
Dismissed.
September 24, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder
2013.09.30 15:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh