ATMA RAM Vs. DYA KRISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against three orders dated (i) 23rd May 1994, of the trial court whereby the trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner, (ii) order dated 27th June 1994 dismissing the application of the petitioner for review and; (iii) the order dated 8th August 1994, dismissing the application for additional evidence. By order dated 23rd May 1994, the learned trial court closed the evidence of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the application for summoning witnesses within time and the application for issuing summons to the witnesses had been filed only when 5 days before date of hearing. Vide order dated 27th June 1994, the learned trial court dismissed the review application made by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 23rd May 1994. Vide order dated 8th August 1994, the learned trial court dismissed another application of the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17a of the CPC which sought second review of the order dated 23rd May 1994 as well as sought leave of the court to lead additional evidence. The learned trial court observed that the case was pending since 1979 and the last witness was examined in 1987 and there was no progress in the case from 1987 to 1994 when the PE was closed and that there was no ground for review. The additional evidence can be allowed only in respect of the fact which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner at the time when he adduced the evidence. No case was made out by the petitioner for additional evidence as well.

(2.) THE petition was filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of Rent control Act for eviction of tenant after seeking leave of the competent authority under Slum Clearance Act 1956 on the ground of non payment of rent and causing damage to the property. The petition before the trial court got delayed for several reasons. Thereafter, this petition is pending now for more than 14 years. In the meantime, the petitioner has died and his LRs have been brought on record and defendant also died and LRs of defendants have also been brought on record. Looking into the fact that the premises is situated in slum area and permission under Section 19 was obtained by the petitioner in order to file the suit, I consider that the LRs of the petitioner should be given an opportunity to conclude the evidence by adducing remaining evidence. I, therefore, allow this petition to the extent that the petitioner be allowed to examine the remaining evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court concerned. The learned trial court shall give a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to lead remaining evidence. This petition stands disposed of in above terms.