Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar Jain vs Vinod Kumar Jain Etc on 15 September, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
vinod kumar
2014.09.20 16:01
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CR No.779 of 2012 (O&M) [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CR No.779 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:15.09.2014
Pawan Kumar Jain ...Petitioner
Versus
Vinod Kumar and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. G.S.Bhatia, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate,
for the respondents.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Respondents filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the petitioner from the demised premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The petitioner denied the rate of rent, as alleged by the respondents-landlords, and alleged that it was @ `2,800/- per month. The petitioner also produced on record original receipts issued by the respondents showing the rate of rent @ `2,800/- per month instead of `5,000/- per month.
The petitioner filed an application for inspection and to take the photographs of the concerned signatures/thumb impressions of Vinod Kumar, for the report of handwriting expert, to which the respondents- landlords did not object, if the copies of the report and photochart are supplied to them before the date fixed. However, the learned Trial Court, vinod kumar 2014.09.20 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.779 of 2012 (O&M) [2] ***** vide its order dated 21.01.2012, dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner was granted two opportunities by the Court on 25.11.2011 to conclude his evidence, out of which only one opportunity has been left and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be allowed.
Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents themselves had not opposed the application for inspection and taking photographs of the concerned signatures/thumb impression, but still the application has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has brought to the notice of the Court that after the impugned order dated 21.01.2012 was passed, another order dated 23.01.2012 was passed, which reads as under:-
"Present: Sh. Rajesh Rikhi, Adv. for applicant.
Sh. R.R.Jain, Adv. for respondent. Sh. Liaqat Ali, Adv. for applicant Zora Singh.
*****
Three RWs are present and examined. Ld.
Counsel for respondent has tendered certain documents and conclude evidence. On request, case is adjourned to 28.01.2012 for consideration on application U/o. 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Sd/-
(Bagicha Singh), PCS CJ(JD), Malerkotla 23.01.2012."
It is submitted that once the evidence of the petitioner has been closed and the said order has not been challenged, he cannot be allowed to vinod kumar 2014.09.20 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CR No.779 of 2012 (O&M) [3] ***** lead evidence to prove the signatures/thumb impressions of the landlord.
Counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the order dated 23.01.2012, but kept on insisting that once the respondents themselves had raised no objection for allowing the application, the order dated 23.01.2012 should not come in his way.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion that this revision petition cannot be allowed because the evidence of the petitioner has already been closed/concluded on 23.01.2012 and the said order has not been challenged by the petitioner by way of revision petition. Until and unless some order is passed by which evidence of the petitioner is re-opened, the opportunity, as claimed by the petitioner and declined vide the impugned order dated 21.01.2012, cannot be granted.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present revision petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.
September 15, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE