HARCHARAN SINGH Vs. S. HAZARA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harcharan Singh has filed this revision petitioner against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Amritsar, dated 24th of January 1980 by which the respondent was allowed to lead additional evidence on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs.

(2.) The respondent had filed an application for ejectment of the petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. The application was contested by the petitioner. On the pleadings of the parties, issue was framed. The parties in support of their plea led evidence. After the close of the evidence, the case was fixed for arguments could not be heard on that dated and the case was adjourned to 13th of December, 1979. On that date, the landlord Rent Controller heard the argument in part and for remaining arguments, the case was adjourned to 17th of December, 1979. Again on the said date, arguments were heard in part and for the remaining arguments, the case was adjourned to 18th of December, 1979. On 18th of December, 1979, arguments were finally concluded and the case was fixed for 24th of December, 1979 for pronouncement of orders. As orders were not ready on 24th of December, 1979, the case was adjourned to 5th of January, 1980. Again on that date, orders could not be pronounced as the same were not ready and the case had to be adjourned : But before passing an order of adjournment, it appears that a request was made orally on behalf of the landlord respondent to the effect that he wished to file an application for leading additional evidence and that he needed time for that purpose. This oral request of the respondent was accepted by the learned Rent Controller and the case was adjourned to 15th of January, 1980. The applicant in the meantime had filed an application for leading additional evidence. On 15th of January, 1980, the case was adjourned to 19th of January, 1980 for the filing of reply to the application. On 19th of January, 1980, reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner and the case was adjourned for consolidation to 22nd of January, 1980, on which date arguments were heard and by the impugned order, the application for additional evidence was allowed.

(3.) On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it was vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no cogent ground had been made out by the respondent for leading additional evidence at that belated stage, that final arguments had been heard in the case and only the orders had to be pronounced, and that the learned Rent Controller had exceeded his jurisdiction in allowing the leading of the additional evidence.