CR No.6686 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6686 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 17.11.2009 **** Paramjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. Bakshish Kaur and another . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ashok Giri, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 24.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, whereby, after setting aside the order dated 05.12.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, dismissing the eviction petition, the matter has been remanded to the Rent Controller, Jalandhar with a direction to grant solitary opportunity to the respondent- landlords “to lead and conclude their evidence” subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner-tenant. The order has necessitated as the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, arrived at the conclusion that before proceeding against the respondent-landlord under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, the Rent Controller, Jalandhar ought to have granted a reasonable opportunity to produce the witnesses for their cross-examination. CR No.6686 of 2009 - 2 - (2). The petitioner-tenant is aggrieved at the afore-stated order primarily due to misplaced apprehension that the respondent-landlords would again delay the production of witnesses and cause harassment to the petitioner. (3). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the judgement dated 24.10.2009 passed by the Appellate Authority, Jalandhar, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same. The impugned order has been passed in the interest of justice and with a view to provide fair trial to the respondent-landlords. As regards the apprehension expressed by the petitioners, suffice it to observe that since solitary opportunity has been granted to the respondent-landlords to lead and conclude their evidence, there is no likelihood of any inordinate delay at the ends of the Rent Controller, Jalandhar, to decide the matter on merits. (4). Dismissed. (5). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 17.11.2009 vishal shonkar