EIH ASSOCIATED HOTELS LTD. Vs. NEEMA BAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 24(5) of the H.P. Urban Rent Control Act (for short the 'Act') is directed against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller No. 7, Shimla, on 22.12.2014 whereby the application moved by the petitioner -landlord under Order 7 Rule 14(3) read with Section 151 C.P.C., was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that it is for the fifth time that an application under Order 7 Rule 14(3) C.P.C. has been moved and the earlier applications filed by the petitioner stand duly allowed.

(3.) MR . R.L. Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Arjun Lall, Advocate, for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the documents sought to be placed on record were official letters, the authenticity, veracity and correctness whereof could not be questioned as these could not be manufactured, procured or even be fabricated. It is further argued that it is only on account of mistaken impression of the petitioner that the same were already on record that the said documents could not be filed. Lastly, it is contended that the rules of procedure are handmaid of justice and are intended to sub -serve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court in CMPMO No. 14 of 2015, decided on 19.06.2015, in case titled Neelam Kumari versus Yogender Singh and others.