DHAR Vs. MAHABIR PARSHAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Rent Controller, Bhiwani, dated 20th May, 1980, by which Mr. K.S. Puri was not allowed to be examined. In spite of the notice having been sent to the respondents, no one has put in appearance. Consequently, ex parte proceedings are taken against them.

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Sarin, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that Mr. K.S. Puri was served for the date on which he was to appear for the petitioner, that a letter of request was produced before the Court on behalf of Mr. K.S. Puri for an adjournment on the ground that he was to appear in some other case at Moga and that in this situation, the learned Rent Controller had acted illegally and with material irregularity in closing the evidence of the petitioner.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find considerable force in his contention. The witness of the petitioner was served for the date for which he was to give his evidence. If on that date the witness did not appear then it was not the fault of the petitioner. If the Court did not accept the request of the witness, then the only course available to the Court was to have issued coercive process against the witness for his attendance in the Court. But, for the default of the witness the petitioner could not be penalised for no fault of his. In this situation, the order of the learned Rent Controller closing the evidence of the petitioner is palpably wrong and cannot legally be sustained.