ROOPAN KATARIA Vs. RAVINDER SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Above captioned revision petitions have been filed against two separate orders both dtd. 15/3/2019, whereby applications of the petitioner seeking recall of AW-4 Ravinder Singh (respondent no. 1- landlord) for further cross-examination and for service of interrogatories on respondent were dismissed by learned Rent Controller, Bathinda. Vide his application under Order XI Rule 1 read with Sec. 151 CPC, he sought permission to serve interrogatories upon respondent no. 1-Ravinder Singh, and vide other application recall of respondent no. 1-Ravinder Singh was sought to ascertain creation of R.S. Gill HUF, its constituent, to know about the bank where HUF is maintaining account, to produce the leasehold agreement entered into by R.S. Gill HUF in favour of various tenants and ownership of such non residential commercial properties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has come to know that respondent no. 1-landlord has created a HUF and there are several properties of that HUF, which have not been disclosed by him. In order to bring on record details of those properties, petitioner has moved application to serve interrogatories upon respondent no. 1-landlord and also to recall him for the purpose of further cross-examination about the properties of HUF.

(3.) The ejectment petition was filed in the year 2011 and after prolonged adjournments evidence was concluded and it was fixed for rebuttal and arguments, when petitioner-tenant filed above applications. However, delay in proceedings is not sole reason to consider the plea raised by the petitioner-tenant or to ascertain the legality, validity and admissibility of the plea as raised by him.