SHAGAN LAL Vs. HARI KISHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shagan Lal and others have filed this revision petition under section 15(5) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 , against the order of the learned Rent Controller dated 27th July, 1973, by which his application dated 23rd July, 1973, was rejected.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition is wholly misconceived. The prayer that was made in the application by the petitioners was that the statement of Harcharan Dass A.W. 5, was against the facts on the record, that in the absence of the original records or the copies thereof it could not be read in evidence and that in order to find out the real facts, Harcharan Das A.W.5 might be resummoned. The application was filed, as stated at the bar of Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of agreements. It is surprising how such an application lay at that stage. The petitioners could have brought it to the notice of the learned Rent Controller during the course of arguments that the statement made by the witness was inadmissible in evidence and in case of any adverse order, the proper remedy for them was to have taken up the issue before the appellate Court, but certainly no revision lay against an order which was passed on the application filed by the petitioners during the course of arguments. Thus, as earlier observed, the present petition is wholly misconceived. It would be open for the aggrieved party to raise any point before the appellate Court, if thought fit, against the final order that may be passed by the Rent Controller in which all the interlocutory orders would be open to review and consideration by the appellate Court.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Revision dismissed.