PT. MUNSHI RAM Vs. JANG BIR BHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated December 14, 1985, whereby the tenant was directed to effect service of the summons on his witnesses dasti for January 6, 1986. The impugned order reads,-

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no occasion for the learned Rent Controller to direct the tenant to take dasti summons for effecting service on his witnesses. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon Joginder Singh Bakshi v. Gajjan Singh, 1978(2) Rent Law Reporter 682; Hari Chand v. Gian Nath Bansal, 1978(2) Rent Control Journal 282 and Balwant Singh v. Firm Raj Singh, A.I.R. 1969 Punjab and Haryana 197.

(3.) PRIMARILY , no revision petition is maintainable against such an order. Vide impugned order, the tenant was directed to effect service of the summons on his witnesses by taking the summons dasti. Instead of making any effort for effecting the service as directed he filed the present revision petition. The whole effort on his part seems to delay the proceedings. The ejectment application on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord is pending since December 1983. Though the landlord closed his evidence in November, 1985, because of certain amendment in the ejectment application yet there is nothing illegal or improper in the impugned order which the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to take dasti summons of this witnesses. It is inherent in the Court or the tribunal to direct the parties to take dasti summons to avoid delay in the determination of the proceedings as no party has the right to delay the same. Rather, the duty of every party is to help the Court or the tribunal in the speedy disposal of the litigation. Moreover, the Court has the inherent power to refuse to summon witnesses if it finds that the issue of summons would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. In this behalf the provisions of Order 16-rule 7-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by way of amendment, also become relevant when they provide for the taking of the dasti summons the service of which shall be or on behalf of such party by delivery or tender to the witness personally a copy thereof without the assistance of the Court process-server. Thus, it is quite evident that the Court could always direct the party to take dasti summons for the service of his witnesses. Therefore, no illegality or impropriety could be pointed our in the impugned order. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case.