BRIJ MOHAN Vs. SOM CHAND AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition directs challenge against order dated 7.12.2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Rent Controller, Bathinda whereby application for recalling Som Chand and Raj Kumar for further cross examination has been dismissed.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents have filed application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (in short "the Act") for eviction of the petitioner from shop situated on the ground floor, forming part of building bearing MC No. 4522 situated in Middu Mal Street, Bathinda, detailed in head note of the petition, on the ground of bona fide personal necessity of Raj Kumar applicant No. 2. Applicants Som Chand and Raj Kumar appeared in the witness box and were cross examined by counsel representing the petitioner before the Court below. The petitioner filed application (Annexure P3) for For Subsequent orders see CR-816-2018 recalling Som Chand and Raj Kumar for further cross examination in respect of certain facts averred in paras 2 to 7 of the application but the same has been dismissed by the Rent Controller without examining plea of the petitioner in right perspective that in case the petitioner is not permitted to further cross examine the applicants on vital aspects of the matter raised in the application, it would be of serious consequence and lead to miscarriage of justice. According to counsel, no prejudice shall be caused to the respondents in case they are recalled for further cross examination as they can well be compensated with costs for being recalled for cross examination as well delay likely to occur because of their recalling for further cross examination.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the paper book particularly the application (Annexure P3), reply thereto (Annexure P4) and the order impugned (Annexure P5).