Sehdev Arya vs Sham Lal on 3 November, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sehdev Arya vs Sham Lal on 3 November, 2011

Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH.


                          Civil Revision No.6717 of 2011 (O&M)
                                      Date of decision: 3.11.2011
Sehdev Arya
                                                     -----Petitioner
                               Vs.
Sham Lal
                                                  -----Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

1.   Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
     see judgment?
2.   To be referred to reporters or not?
3.   Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Present:-   Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate
            for the petitioner.
              ---


RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.

This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 22.9.2011 of the Rent Controller, Hisar, whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court.

By referring to various zimni orders, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that on many dates, adjournments were not sought on his behalf and thus, he was not at fault. Petitioner cannot be denied his right to lead evidence merely on the basis of technicalities. It has been further submitted before this Court that no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent-tenant as he is yet to start his evidence. Moreover, the respondent-tenant can be well compensated by way of costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner C.R. No.6717 of 2011 2 further undertakes that the petitioner shall produce his entire evidence on one date and shall bring the evidence at his own risk and responsibility.

It is well settled that provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are hand made for administration of justice. In fact, the petitioner is not going to gain anything by delaying the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Moreover, no prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent as he is yet to start his evidence.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner is granted one opportunity to lead evidence at his own risk and responsibility subject to payment of costs which is assessed at `1,000/-.

It is made clear that the payment of costs shall be condition precedent for allowing the petitioner to one more opportunity to lead his evidence and that no further opportunity shall be granted to him in this regard.

Disposed of.

November 03, 2011                   ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )
ak                                           JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court