AMAR NATH Vs. PARKASH DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller refusing to issue a commission for examination of two witnesses at the instance of the petitioner. One of these witnesses is said to be residing at Simla and the other is said to be residing at Baroda.

(2.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that the witness who is residing at Simla can be conveniently summoned by the Petitioner as a witness and no commission need be issued for examining him.

(3.) So far as the witness residing at Barod is concerned, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has argued that he was an ex-tenant in a position of this very property and the circumstances in which he was forced to quit would be relevant for the decision of this case. Mr. K.K. Kapur, the learned counsel for the respondents, states that this petition has been filed with a view to delay the proceedings, and his clients would have no objection if an open commission is issued to the witness residing at Baroda provided of course they are ordered to be paid the expenses to be incurred for visiting Baroda and for engaging a counsel there for crossxamining the witness.