ASHOK KUMAR BAGGA Vs. PRITHIVI NATH KAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition against the order of the Rent Controller, dated May 13, 1976, by which it was ordered that the tenant -Petitioner should arrange service of his witnesses at his own responsibility and produce List entire evidence on the next date, that is, August 19, 1976.

(2.) THE Respondent -landlord, made an application under section 13 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 19(sic)9, for ejectment of the tenant Petitioner. The evidence of the Respondent landlord was closed on March 4, 1976, and the case was adjourned to May 13, 1976, for the evidence of the tenant Petitioner. The tenant Petitioner, wanted to produce three witnesses the diet money and process fee regarding whom was deposited within two days of the order. On May 13, 1976, these witnesses were not present as, according to the report of the process server, they were not available at their respective addresses, on which the impugned order was passed. Normally and ordinarily, any party to the litigation has a right to summon his witnesses and, if the diet money and process fee is deposited within time, it is the duty of the Court to summon those witnesses. The party concerned cannot be forced to get those witnesses, served at his own responsibility or to produce them. In the present case, the diet money and the process fee had been deposited within time and complete addresses of the witnesses had also been furnished. The mere fact that according to the report of the process server the witnesses were not available at their addresses, does not show that correct addresses of the witnesses had not been given. May be that the process server went to serve the summonses on the witnesses only on one occasion and the witnesses may not be available there. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the process server in fact, never went to serve the summonses but made false report in connivance with, the Respondent landlord. It is not possible to draw any conclusion one way or the her from report of the process server, but the fact remains that the, process server went to serve the summonses on the witnesses only once and the tenant -Petitioner, was given only one opportunity to summon his witnesses. In these circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It seems, the Rent Controller, in his anxiety the dispose of the case finally without delay, did not take into consideration desirability of complying with the, rules of procedure, which affect the rights of the parties. It is the duty of the Court to see that no party is allowed to unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and use dilatory tactics, but it is also equally the duty of the Court to, strictly observe and comply with the procedure so that injustice is not done. Sometimes, it may be desirable to direct that the party himself, should get the witnesses served if the witnesses have not been summoned, though opportunity is given a number of times, In this case, only one opportunity was given. It will be in his own interest if the tenant - Petitioner takes the process server with him to summon the with cusses so that the process server may not play in the hands of the Respondent landlord and make a false report.