Civil Revision No. 4324 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4324 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2010 Naresh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus Ashok Kumar and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to challenge the order dated 14.6.2010, passed by the learned Rent Controller, vide which the evidence of the petitioner was ordered to be closed. It is not in dispute, that the petitioner commenced his evidence on 28.5.2010 and concluded most of the evidence. This hurry in leading evidence, was because there was an order by this Court directing the learned Rent Controller, to dispose off the petition by 31.7.2010. The case of the petitioner is, that the remaining witnesses, who were to be examined, were to be summoned. The witnesses could not be summoned, as prior to the date fixed, the learned Rent Controller was on leave, therefore, no application for summoning the witnesses could be Civil Revision No. 4324 of 2010 (O&M) -2- moved, which was in fact moved on the date fixed i.e. 14.6.2010. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the application, merely for the reason, that as per the orders of this Court, petitioner was to complete his evidence by 14.6.2010, therefore, no summons could be issued to the witnesses for their examination as no date could be fixed for evidence of the petitioner, as ordered by this Court. It is true, that this Court passed the order directing the learned Rent Controller, to decide the rent petition by 31.7.2010 and had also ordered the petitioner to conclude the evidence by 14.6.2010. This Court, therefore, does not find anything wrong with the order passed by the learned Rent Controller. However, keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of this peculiar case, and the difficulty faced by the petitioner in not adhering to the date fixed by this Court for the reasons stated, this Court feels, that it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is granted two more opportunities to conclude his evidence, at his own risk and responsibility. The learned Rent Controller, is directed to give necessary assistance for summoning of the witnesses, by way of dasti process, it shall be the responsibility of the petitioner to serve these witnesses. In the connected matter, this Court has already extended the time for disposal of the rent petition on the request of the learned Rent Controller. Even if two further opportunities are given to the petitioner, still the learned Rent Controller, decide the petition within the extended period, as the respondents have already concluded their evidence. Civil Revision No. 4324 of 2010 (O&M) -3- For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the petitioner is given two opportunities to conclude his evidence on the date to be fixed by the learned Rent Controller, at his own risk and responsibility, but with the assistance of learned Rent Controller in summoning the witnesses by dasti process. No costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 27, 2010 R.S.