HARI CHAND Vs. GIAN NATH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition has been filed by Hari Chand against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated 3.12.1977 vide which he was given last opportunity to produce his evidence at his own responsibility. It was also directed that if he so likes he might take Dasti summons.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the first time the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence on 3.9.1977, that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 35/- as diet money and Rs. 2.25 Ps. as process fee for summoning his witnesses with the Civil Nazir vide receipt No. 493 dated 6.8.1977 but no summons of the witnesses were issued and the case was adjourned to 3.12.1977. He further pointed out that the Ahlmad of the Court did not place on record the application of the petitioner depositing diet money etc. and although particulars of the application were given but even then no summonses were issued to the witnesses and that the order passed by the Rent Controller is illegal.

(3.) Mr. Jang Bahadur Chaudhary, Advocate appearing for the respondent has not been able to rebut the allegations made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had deposited the diet money and the process fee in time but the processes were not issued to the witnesses. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner gave the particulars of his application, depositing process fee and diet money, even then no action was taken by the Rent Controller against the defaulting official, rather gave last opportunity to the petitioner for producing his evidence at his own responsibility. There are no reasons for passing such order specially when the petitioner had discharged his duty by depositing the process fee and the diet money of his witnesses. The order under revision is palpably wrong. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the order dated 3.12.1977 is set aside and it is directed that the Rent Controller will now summon the witnesses of Hari Chand petitioner. He can, at the most, direct the petitioner to take the summonses of the witnesses Dasti so that the case may be disposed of earlier. In case the witnesses are not served inspite of best efforts that will be no ground for refusing adjournment in the case. The costs of this petition will follow the event. The trial of the case has already been fixed in the Court of the Rent Controller on April 6, 1978, on which date the summonses to the witnesses of the petitioner may be issued for a suitable date to be fixed by the trial Court.