LAWS(DLH)-1998-2-45

SHIV CHARAN Vs. DEEP CHAND

Decided On February 01, 1998
SHIV CHARAN Appellant
V/S
DEEP CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant by this Revision Petition assailsan order dated 16.1.1997, passed by Shri H.S. Sharma, Additional Rent Controller,Delhi, directing the petitioner to produce his wife on the next date of hearing failingwhich an adverse inference would be drawn and it shall be presumed that thecomplaint dated 26.2.1991, bears the thumb impression of his wife. The physicalpresence has been directed so that the identity of petitioner's wife who has deniedmaking the complaint could be verified by the Investigation Officer.

(2.) For an appreciation of the matter in controversy the following facts givingrise to the present Civil Revision Petition may be noticed:

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner who has assailed thisimpugned order as being illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel hasargued that apart from the fact that the order for physical presence of the witness wasnot contemplated under Section 30 of Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of identification. Thepurpose of identification sought to be achieved was self defeating inasmuch as if thepetitioner's wife was asked to be present in Court Assistant Sub-Inspector, SuratSingh, who the petitioner claims is helping the respondent, would nave no difficultyin identifying her as being the only lady who was to be re-examined as a witness.Learned Counsel submits that there was no provision of identification of a witness.Even in case of identification of the accused, the procedure under Criminal Proce-dure Code is followed where the accused is required to be picked out from a similarnumber of persons, who have not been seen before. Learned Counsel for thepetitioner submitted that he would have no objection if an identification parade wasto be carried out.