Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ramesh Chander Alias Ramesh Kumar And ... vs Jeet Singh And Others on 20 August, 2010

Author: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Bench: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Civil Revision No.2566 of 2010                                         1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.


                      Civil Revision No.2566 of 2010

                      Date of Decision: 20.8.2010


Ramesh Chander alias Ramesh Kumar and Another
                                                            ...Petitioners
                                 Versus
Jeet Singh and Others
                                                         ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate
         for the petitioners.

          Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate
          for respondents No.1 and 2.

          None for respondents No.3 and 4.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition has been filed by the tenants, who are aggrieved against the order dated 1.4.2010 (Annexure P2), passed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby their evidence was closed. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that one opportunity be granted to them to conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, has objected to the same submitting that the tenants are unnecessary lingering on the eviction petition and despite availing of ten opportunities, they have not concluded their evidence. Civil Revision No.2566 of 2010 2

Mr. Sarabjit Singh, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, has stoutly denied the assertions made by Mr. Chawla. He submitted that only three opportunities; have been provided to the petitioners to conclude their evidence.

Without going into this controversy, this Court is of the view that fair play and equity demand that one opportunity be granted to the petitioners to conclude their evidence, at their own risk and responsibility.

Since the petitioners have not been diligent enough to conclude their evidence, they are burdened with the cost of Rs.5,000/-. On payment of the cost, the Rent Controller, Amritsar, shall permit the petitioners to conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility, on one date.

With the observations made above the present revision petition is disposed of.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 20, 2010 "DK"