Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Vivek Ummat vs Surinder Kaur on 14 September, 2016

Author: Sureshwar Thakur

Bench: Sureshwar Thakur

+ IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                           Civil Revision No. 55 of 2016.

                                           Date of decision:        14.09.2016




                                                                                   .
  Vivek Ummat





                                                                  .....Petitioner.
                                   Versus





  Surinder Kaur
                                                                  ....Respondent

  Coram




                                                         of
  The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Sureshwar Thakur, J.
  Whether approved for reporting?1
  For the petitioner:
                                  rt       Mr. G.C.Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
                                           Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.

  For the respondent:                      Mr. Gulzar Singh Rathour, Advocate.



  Sureshwar Thakur, J. (Oral)

The respondent/petitioner herein stands aggrieved by the order of the learned Rent Controller-3, Shimla rendered on 22.3.2016 whereby it closed the respondent's evidence on account of the latter not taking steps for adduction of his evidence despite repeated opportunities extending upto a period of three years. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein contends qua the aforesaid reason as stands embodied in 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?

the impugned rendition of the learned Rent Controller concerned warranting its standing discounted, its standing ingrained with a palpable .

falsity. He contends of though on 29.3.2012 a last opportunity standing afforded by the learned Rent Controller to the respondent/petitioner herein to of adduce on the relevant issue his evidence thereon also he concedes to the factum of his not taking steps, rt to, as ordered by the learned Rent Controller concerned for adducing his evidence on 23/05/2012 yet he contends of his procuring the presence of RWs also his recording their testimonies on 13.7.2012. Subsequently, a perusal of the order sheets therefrom upto 23.11.2015 unravels of the learned Rent Controller concerned on its standing seized with applications preferred therebefore under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC and under Order 8 Rule 1A(3) hence its deferring the recording of testifications of RWs concerned also it is apparent from a perusal of the order sheets from 30.8.2012 upto 23.11.2015 of ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:13:50 :::HCHP 3 the learned Rent Controller concerned not insisting upon the respondent/petitioner herein to adduce his evidence rather it protracting its making .

pronouncements on the aforesaid applications.

Since the respondent/petitioner herein, had on 13.7.2012 adduced his evidence also when as of stated above therefrom upto 23.11.2015 the learned Rent Controller concerned did not insist rt upon adduction of evidence on the relevant issue by the respondent/petitioner herein rather it deferred pronouncements on applications aforesaid preferred therebefore, it was grossly inapt for the learned Rent Controller concerned to conclude of the respondent/petitioner herein despite several opportunities ranging over a period of three years standing afforded to him to adduce his evidence, his derelicting his availing the purported apposite opportunities hence warranting closure of his evidence. The period from 13.7.2012 upto 23.11.2015 as stands concluded by the learned Rent Controller ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:13:50 :::HCHP 4 concerned to be the period wherewithin the respondent/petitioner herein despite several opportunities standing afforded to him to adduce .

his evidence omitted to avail them is per-se ingrained with a sheer falsity whereupon this Court accepts the contention of the learned of counsel for the petitioner herein qua the reason as assigned by the learned Rent Controller concerned rt in its impugned rendition for not affording any further opportunity to the respondent/petitioner herein for adducing his evidence on the relevant issue being amenable to its standing discountenanced by this Court. Contrarily, the availment of opportunity, if any, by the petitioner herein commenced after the rendition of the learned Rent Controller on an application under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC rendition whereof stood pronounced on 23.11.2015 significantly when thereafter it does not appear of their being any dereliction on the part of the respondent/petitioner herein to adduce his ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 21:13:50 :::HCHP 5 evidence on the relevant issue. Consequently, the impugned order merit interference. Petition allowed. The learned Rent Controller concerned .

is directed to permit the respondent/petitioner herein to adduce his evidence on the relevant issue subject to steps in the aforesaid regard of being taken by him within two weeks. Since the impugned order of the learned Rent Controller rt suffers from a vice of thorough non application of mind, she is directed to be careful in future. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on 5th October, 2016.

14th September, 2016. (Sureshwar Thakur) ™ Judge.