SURENDER SINGH Vs. DARSHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Sub-section (6) of Section 15 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 challenges the order dated 5.12.2002 passed by the Rent Controller, Kaithal, dismissing the application of the tenant-petitioner for his own re-examination. The Rent Controller has opined that the tenant-petitioner had closed his evidence on 25.3.2002. The order recorded by the Rent Controller reads as under : "After perusing the pleadings of the parties and documents placed on file and contents of the application moved by respondent for additional evidence, it emerges out that the applicant being landlord filed the eviction petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Rent Act against the respondent on 23.3.1996, thereafter the respondent contested the petition and filed the reply and issues were framed by the then learned Rent Controller, Kaithal vide order dated 22.8.96, thereafter both the parties led their evidence as per their pleadings. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence and arguments, then the present application moved by counsel for the respondent through counsel for re-examination himself as RW 1. The respondent came in the witness box as RW 1 on 25.3.2002 and examined. In support of his statement he also examined RW 2 Naresh Kumar Miglani, thereafter counsel for the respondent closed the respondent evidence. Now, the present application filed by the respondent on the ground that the facts as mentioned in the written statement were not deposed by RWs as inadvertently, so the pleas taken by the respondent at this stage is not maintainable. Further the provision under Order 18 Rule 17A has already been deleted by amendment in CPC w.e.f. 1.7.2002. Further the respondent as well as counsel for the respondent have knowledge about the pleadings from the beginning and closed the evidence of the respondent to this effect. Now the grounds taken in the application is not maintainable. Hence, the dictum laid down in the authority titled Western Electronics Ltd. v. M/s Chand Radio and others, 1998(1) SCC 348 referred by counsel for the applicant/respondent is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the proposition laid down in the authority is not disputed but facts are entirely different."

(2.) I have heard Shri Jatinder Chauhan, learned counsel for the tenant- petitioner who has argued that the tenant-petitioner is an illiterate person and was not able to depose in accordance with the averments made by him in his written statement. The statement has been omitted inadvertently. He has further pointed out that the case of the tenant-petitioner would be prejudiced as he only wants to make a statement with regard to personal necessity claimed by the landlord-respondents.

(3.) THE plea of illiteracy raised by the learned counsel can also not be accepted because in all cases where the litigant is illiterate his application for additional evidence cannot be allowed. The adversary legal system as created in this country has ensured balancing of inequalities between illiterate and an educated person by creating the institution of Advocates. As long as the parties are represented by their counsel, such a plea could hardly be entertained. Therefore, I do not find merit in the contention raised on behalf of the tenant petitioner. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.