Uttarakhand High Court
Rajendra Pal Singh vs Har Mohinder Pal Singh on 2 June, 2017
Author: Servesh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Servesh Kumar Gupta
CLR 3/2017 Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the revisionist.
Dr. I.M. Quddusi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.S. Rawat, Advocate for the respondent.
Having heard learned Counsels for the parties on the pros and cons of the impugned order dated 5.11.2016 rejecting the amendment application 136C moved by the tenant/defendant, the Court is not inclined to burden this short order disclosing the whole merits and the controversy between the parties, as the same may adversely affect and impact the findings of the Court below. I think such application has rightly been rejected.
At the same time, I feel that the tenant/defendant will have every opportunity to cross-examine Har Mohinder Pal Singh on the question of whether he still subsists his landlordship over the suit property or not. The burden will be on the shoulders of Har Mohinder Pal Singh to prove his landlordship over the demised premises.
Subject to above observation, this revision is bereft of any merit and it is hereby disposed of in the above terms.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Learned Trial Court is directed to adjudicate this long pending matter at the earliest, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties. Any other pending interlocutory application shall be heard in precedence.
(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 2.6.2017 Prabodh