MAHESH KUMAR AND ANR Vs. SWAMI DAYAL KAITYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the defendant-tenant/petitioners.

(2.) By the impugned order dated 01.02018 the application for cross examination of the deponent of the affidavit (paper No.36 Ga), i.e., Sri S. S. Kushwaha, Engineer and Architect, has been rejected on two findings, firstly, that Rule 22 does not provide for cross examination and there is no provision under the Act for cross examination from witness and secondly, the application for cross examination has been moved with intent to delay with the disposal of the case. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order dated 01.02018 the defendant-tenant/petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Section 34(1)(a) of U.P. Act 13 of 1972 confers power upon the prescribed authority and certain other authorities under the Act to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examining him on oath. Therefore, the observation of the prescribed authority in the impugned order that there is no such provision, is wholly incorrect. In support of his submission he relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of U.P. and another Vs. Ist Additional District Judge, Allahabad and others,1983 1 ARC 752 (para 11 to 16), Mahesh Chand Vs. Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bulandshahar/Prescribed Authority,2005 1 ARC 558 and Mohd. Rauf Vs. Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge, Senior Division), Unnao and others,1997 2 ARC 589.