Ram Karan Dass And Ors vs Sri Sanatan Dharm Mahabir Dal And Ors on 3 August, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Karan Dass And Ors vs Sri Sanatan Dharm Mahabir Dal And Ors on 3 August, 2016

Bench: Amit Rawal

C.R. No.4905 of 2016                                          -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                 HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                        C.R. No.4905 of 2016
                                        Date of Decision.03.08.2016

Ram Karan Dass and others                                     .......Petitioners

                                              Vs.

Sri Sanatan Dharm Mahabir Dal and others                  ........Respondents

Present:    Mr. Harmanpreet Kaur (Simmi), Advocate
            for the petitioners.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

1.  Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
    judgment ?
2.  To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3.  Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                   -.-
AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL)

The petitioners-respondents in the ejectment petition before the Rent Controller are aggrieved of the order dated 13.07.2016 whereby their evidence has been closed.

Ms. Harmanpreet Kaur (Simmi), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-respondents are willing to produce all the witnesses at the adjourned date, even summoned witnesses, if necessary, in case one opportunity is granted.

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners-respondents and appraised the paper book and of the view that no doubt, the petitioners- respondents were negligent in concluding the evidence. However, in order to advance justice and prevent miscarriage of justice, I deem it appropriate to grant one effective opportunity to the petitioners to conclude their evidence.

Keeping in view the aforementioned observations, the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 05:12:16 ::: C.R. No.4905 of 2016 -2- impugned order is set aside and the petitioners-respondents shall conclude their evidence in accordance with law subject to payment of costs of `5,000/- which shall be condition precedent. If the costs is not paid as directed, the order passed already by the court below shall stand restored.

The impugned order is set aside and the revision petition is allowed.


                                                     (AMIT RAWAL)
                                                       JUDGE
August 03, 2016
Pankaj*

            Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes

            Whether reportable                No




                               2 of 2
            ::: Downloaded on - 14-09-2016 05:12:17 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court