Civil Revision No. 703 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 703 of 2009 Date of decision : 25.1.2010 Smt. Lajwanti ....Petitioner Versus Sukhdev Singh ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. Arvind Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner S. D. ANAND, J. This petition, at the hands of the petitioner-landlady calls into question of validity of the impugned order dated 5.12.2008 vide which the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) declined to grant any further opportunity for additional evidence. Initially, the evidence of the petitioner-landlady was closed under the order dated 24.4.2008 of the learned Rent Controller and the matter was adjourned for recording of evidence of the respondent. The petitioner came up in revision which was allowed by this Court in limine, vide order dated 28.9.2008 by a Coordinate Bench (Nawab Singh, J.) of this Court. This Court granted one opportunity to the petitioner-landlady to conclude her evidence on her own responsibility subject to payment of costs. On receipt of that order, the matter was adjourned by the learned Rent Controller for the evidence of the petitioner-landlady. On the date fixed, no evidence was adduced and the petitioner- Civil Revision No. 703 of 2009 -2- **** landlady applied for grant of an adjournment to be able her to get the tenanted premises inspected by an expert. It is that request which was declined by the learned Rent Controller. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, argues that the impugned order deserves invalidation on account of it being violative of one opportunity granted by this Court to the petitioner-landlady, vide order dated 24.9.2008. The plea deserves merely noticed to be discarded. This Court, while allowing Civil Revision No.3201 of 2008, had granted one opportunity to the petitioner-landlady to conclude her evidence. That order nowhere authorised her to first get the adjourned for evidence and, then, ask to further adjournment for whatever purposes. If the petitioner-landlady wanted the assistance of the Court for the issuance of a direction to the tenant to allow access to the expert to inspect the tenanted premises, the request should have been made in time and in such a manner that report was available by the adjourned date and the expert was examined on that date. It was not so done by the petitioner-landlady in this case. I find that the impugned order is based upon sound and acceptable reasoning and it does not call interference. Dismissed. January 25, 2010 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE