KANS RAJ Vs. SALIG RAM TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned Rent Controller whereby he declined to recall the respondent-landlord for further cross-examination.

(2.) The order under revision is plainly unexceptionable. It appears that the respondent-landlord had stepped into the witness box as his own witness and was cross-examined at length on behalf of the petitioners. The cross-examination was closed by the trial Court and no prayer at that stage was made for either reserving any further right of cross-examination or deferring the same. However, latter, an application was moved that the respondent landlord be recalled to afford the petitioners another opportunity for cross-examining him with regard to some account books. This application has been rejected in a considered order by the trial Court.

(3.) The trial Court has in express terms noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioners before it had made no request whatsoever for deferring the cross-examination and it was, therefore, that the same was closed and consequently the petitioner's right to cross-examine the witness had been virtually exhausted. The suggestion made on behalf of the petitioners that they were liven to understand that some oral request was made by the learned counsel had been thus firmly repelled. The trial Court seems further to have come to the conclusion that the recalling of the witness was not necessary in the interest of justice. The matter appears to be primarily discretionary and nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioners that the exercise of this discretion has, in any way, been vitiated.