1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2471/2008 (Gheesu Ram Vs. Smt. Sita Devi & Ors.) Date of order : 20.05.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. C.P.Soni for the petitioner. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, the order Annex.5 dated 28.3.2008 passed by respondent No.3 Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur (for short 'the Tribunal' hereinafter) has been challenged. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Carefully gone through the order impugned. By the order impugned, the opportunity to cross- examine the applicant respondent has been closed. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the fault of counsel who did not cross-examine the witness of applicant respondent, the petitioner should not be made to suffer. From the order impugned, it appears that an application under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Rent Act, 2001 was 2 filed in the year 2004 before the respondent No.3 by the respondents No.1 and 2 and against the petitioner. After service of notice, the petitioner tenant failed to appear before the respondent No.3 on 12.7.2006 and ex-parte proceeding was ordered against the petitioner, however on 7.8.2006 on an application moved by the counsel for the petitioner the order proceeding ex-parte was set aside. The applicant respondent has been appearing for the cross-examination on each date fixed by the Tribunal. Again on 18.4.2007 neither the counsel representing the petitioner nor the petitioner appeared before the Tribunal and again ex-parte proceeding was ordered. However, on an application moved on behalf of the petitioner, on 22.5.2007, the ex-parte order was set aside though on a cost of Rs. 500/-. Thereafter also, the applicant respondent appeared but was not subjected to cross-examination by the counsel representing the petitioner and the matter was posted to 25.9.2007. On 25.9.2007 neither the petitioner nor counsel representing the petitioner were present in Court for cross- examination and in absence of counsel representing the petitioner and the petitioner, the witness could not be cross- examined. The matter has been lingering on for quite long period since the application seeking eviction from the rented premises was filed in the year 2004 and as it appears from the order impugned, the applicant's witness has been appearing before the 3 Tribunal again and again but the witness was not subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner or counsel representing the petitioner and therefore, the opportunity to cross-examine the witness was closed by the order impugned. From the events noticed above, it appears that the applicant respondent has been prosecuting the application for eviction and the rent, but for one reason or the other, it is the petitioner tenant who has been lingering on the matter either remaining ex-parte and then again moving the Tribunal for setting aside of the ex-parte order or failing to appear and cross- examine the witness of applicant respondent and from the order impugned it appears that the Tribunal has taken a lenient view in again and again setting aside the ex-parte orders. In my view, the order impugned cannot be said to have suffered from any error or illegality warranting interference in extra-ordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition has no force and it is therefore, dismissed summarily. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 4 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 4391/08 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2471/2008 (Gheesu Ram Vs. Smt. Sita Devi & Ors.) Date of order : 20.05.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. C.P.Soni for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp