Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar And Another vs Smt.Manbari Devi And Another ... on 21 April, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
CR No.2269 of 2011
Decided on 21.4.2011.
Surinder Kumar and another -- Petitioners
vs.
Smt.Manbari Devi and another --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.K.B.Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Mukesh Verma,Advocate,for the respondents Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.3.2011 passed by learned Rent Controller, Rewari, by which evidence of the petitioners has been ordered to be closed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he had given a list of 23 witnesses on 27.1.2011 and had also deposited diet money and process fee for their service and presence. On 16.2.2011 he had examined four witnesses and on the adjourned date i.,e. 3.3.2011, he examined another 11 witnesses. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 22.3.2011 when the impugned order was passed closing the evidence of the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are four witnesses left out to be examined, namely Nand Kishore Nagpal, CR No.2269 of 2011 -2- Building Expert, Shyam Kumar Assistant from the Income Tax Department with summoned record, Pardhan, Rewari Property Dealer Association and one Clerk from the High Court. It is, therefore, requested by the learned counsel for the petitioners that except for himself, other witnesses may be ordered to be summoned through the process of the Court for which he has already deposited the necessary process fee and diet money so that their presence may be procured on the next date of hearing without any further delay.
In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this revision petition may be allowed but a direction may be given to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial so that the petitioners herein may not further delay the matter as the eviction petition has been filed including the ground of personal necessity.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the concession given by the learned counsel for the respondents herein, the impugned order dated 22.3.2011 is set aside. The learned Rent Controller, Rewari is directed to summon the aforesaid witnesses through the process of the Court and examine them on the next date of hearing or on the date to be fixed by it.
With these observations, this revision petition is disposed of.
21.4.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge