Himachal Pradesh High Court
Prakash Chand And Another vs Ajay Sharma on 2 April, 2015
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.R. No. 28 of 2015 .
Date of decision: 02.04.2015 Prakash Chand and another ...Petitioners.
Versus
Ajay Sharma ..Respondent.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioners : Mr. G.C.Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate.
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) This revision petition under Section 24 (5) of the H.P.Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 is directed against the order dated 13.3.2015 passed by learned Rent Controller (2), Shimla in Case No. 10-6 of 2015, whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the orders of the Court.
2. The petitioner in support of his allegation that the impugned order is not sustainable has annexed the copies of zimini orders w.e.f.
30.12.2014 to 13.3.2015 when the impugned order came to be passed.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid orders would go to show that the learned Rent Controller appears to be under tremendous pressure to record the evidence since the case was targeted one and the learned Appellate Authority had been pressing hard for completing the evidence, but that does not mean that there can be a complete go-bye to the law. A 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:29 :::HCHP 2 further perusal of the order-sheets would reveal that the case had been listed more than seven times but the petitioner was hardly at fault at any .
given occasion. After all, the petitioner could only do what was within his reach and competence and could not have been expected to perform impossible.
4. This observation is being made in view of the fact that the case was listed after winter vacation on 18.2.2015 and thereafter listed an interval of three to six days during which the petitioner was expected to get his entire evidence recorded. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Rent Controller is not sustainable and is accordingly set-
aside.
5. It must be remembered that the Courts are respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so and further taking into consideration the fact that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done.
6. The parties through their counsel shall appear before the learned Rent Controller, Court No.(II), Shimla on 10.4.2015, who shall make all endeavours to record the evidence as expeditiously as possible and shall dispose of the case in no event later than 31.5.2015.
7. Before parting, it only needs to be clarified that though the respondent had taken a preliminary objection regarding the petitioner No.1 of not being of unsound mind. However, this Court is not giving any ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:29 :::HCHP 3 findings on this issue lest it prejudices in future the case of either of the parties.
.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending application. Interim order granted by this Court on 19.3.2015 is vacated. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
Copy dasti.
April 2, 2015 ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
(GR) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 17:56:29 :::HCHP