VINOD KUMAR Vs. PARTAP CHAND ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 8.6.1988 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Karnal whereby he dismissed the application of the tenant-petitioner to lead additional evidence.

(2.) THERE are certain undisputed facts on the record. The evidence of the landlord-respondent was closed on 13.4.1987 and the case was fixed for the evidence of the petitioner on 26.5.1987. The petitioner filed a list of witnesses and sought to summon as many as 9 witnesses. He deposited diet money and process fee also. Dasti summons were issued for effecting service on these witnesses. However, for one reason or the other, despite the presence of some of the summoned witnesses their statements could not be recorded. No doubt on 12.2.1988, counsel for the petitioner made a statement which can reasonably be constructed to mean that only Darshan Singh, Clerk of the Municipal Committee was to be examined. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that other witnesses besides Darshan Singh had already been summoned and were to be examined. The statement of the counsel was not be restrict the evidence has not been allowed to be recorded.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY , I allow this revision petition and set aside the impugned order without any order as to costs. I direct the learned Rent Controller to fix a date for the remaining evidence of the petitioner which, as indicated above, shall be the last opportunity. The petitioner may seek the assistance of the Court to summon witnesses but no adjournment shall be granted on the ground whether or not any particular witness has been served or is not present. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Rent Controller on December 5, 1988. Petition allowed.