IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7884 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Ashok Kumar -----Petitioner Vs. Darshan Lal -----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. Jastej Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 6.9.2011 of the Rent Controller, Jagadhri, whereby evidence of the petitioner has been closed by order of this Court. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Rent Controller has failed to notice the simple fact that the petitioner shall never gain anything by delaying his own case and therefore, the petitioner should have been allowed an opportunity to lead his evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the submissions made in this petition and the impugned order. No doubt, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are hand made for administration of justice and these provisions are to be interpreted and applied liberally, however, it is coming out C.R. No.7884 of 2011 from the record that the petitioner who is a tenant was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 3.4.2006 and ex parte decree of eviction was passed on 23.12.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner has come to the Court for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte order of eviction after a considerable delay. Not only this, even a perusal of the impugned order would show that numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner for cross-examination of his witnesses and despite those opportunities, the witnesses were not present. From the aforesaid facts, it is clear that the petitioner is interested only in delaying the proceedings. No one can be given premium for his own faults. Nor anyone can be allowed to abuse the process of law. Thus, no ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2