Civil Revision No.6240 of 2011 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.6240 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:13.10.2011 Anita Devi ....Petitioner Versus Hari Ram Saini ....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.M.K.Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J (ORAL) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 23.08.2011 whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner had requested the Rent Controller by moving an application for summoning the witnesses which was duly accepted and the summons were issued on 19.08.2011 to all the witnesses for hearing on 23.08.2011. However, the aforesaid witnesses could not be served due to holidays falling on 20th, 21st, 22nd August, 2011 and, thus, the petitioner was not at fault and his evidence could not have been closed by order of the Court. Moreover, the Rent Controller should have resorted to Order 16 of the Civil Procedure Cod for securing the presence of the official witnesses and thus the impugned order was liable to be set aside and petitioner was entitled to further opportunity to lead his evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. With the Civil Revision No.6240 of 2011 (O&M) 2 help of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the zimini orders of the earlier dates were also perused from which it is made out that at no stage petitioner was granted help of the Court process to bring the evidence. From reading of the various zimini orders, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was to bring his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. On 08.08.2011, last opportunity was granted to him by adjourning the case to 23.08.2011 for bringing evidence at his own risk and responsibility and there was no occasion for him to seek the presence of the witnesses through the process of the Court. Even the alleged application (Anneuxre P1) for depositing the diet money etc. of the witnesses does not show that any order of the Rent Controller allowing him to secure the presence of the witnesses through the process of the Court, was passed. Thus, the petitioner was granted opportunity to bring evidence at his own risk and responsibility. Instead of bringing the evidence at his own responsibility, petitioner has got the summoned issued for attendance of the witnesses without any authority of law. Even petitioner in his averments has concealed that on the earlier dates he was granted opportunity at his own risk and responsibility. A perusal of the impugned order would show that despite granting many opportunities, petitioner failed to conclude his evidence. Thus, no error can be found in the impugned order. Dismissed. October 13, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) savita JUDGE