BALBIR SINGH Vs. HARINDER KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present revision petition, filed by the petitioner-tenant, is to the order dated 04.09.2015 (Annexure P4) whereby the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, has declined the application for summoning 7 witnesses.

(2.) The reasoning given by the Rent Controller is that the ownership of the disputed shop cannot be determined and there was no mention of the witnesses. The second reasoning given is that the name of the witnesses were not mentioned in the pleadings of the respondents and all these documents were required to be proved in evidence but there was no mention in the pleadings. Accordingly, reliance had been placed upon the judgment in Union of India v. Orient Engg. and Commercial Co. Ltd. 1977 AIR (SC) 2445 , whereby the Apex Court had set aside the summoning of the Arbitrator on the ground that Arbitrator need not have to undergo cross-examination and he cannot be called as a witness. Therefore, reliance upon the said judgment is, in the opinion of this Court, is not attracted to the facts of the present application. Another judgment which weighed with the Court was of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Yashpal Sawhney v. Gandotra Traders., M/s., AIR 1995 (J&K) 32 wherein principles were laid down as to what is the nature of litigation and the principle and nature of issues and the onus, before issuing the summons. The last reasoning which prevailed with the Rent Controller was that Order 16, Rule 1 CPC required filing list of witnesses at the time of framing of the issues and not as and when the party so desires.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment in M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. M/s Steel Strips and Tubes Ltd. 2007 (4) PLR 236 , to submit that the provisions of Order 16, Rule 1 CPC are not mandatory but are only directory and the rules and procedures are meant for advancement of justice and not to subvert the same.