CR No.3463 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CR No.3463 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.06.2011 Anil Kumar Sharma . . .Petitioner Versus Gulshan Kumari and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Inderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against order dated 11.10.2010 by which opportunity to cross-examination of PW Om Parkash was treated as ‘Nil’. In brief, the landlord filed petition for seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop, inter alia, on the ground of non-payment of rent. On 18.8.2010, the learned Rent Controller passed the following order: “Present: Counsel for the parties. One PW namely Om Parkash is present but learned counsel for the respondent requested adjournment for his cross examination. Oppossed. The witness has stated that the learned counsel repeatedly seeking adjournment on ground one or the other and because of this cross-examination could not conducted till today. Last opportunity is granted for the cross examination of PW Om Parkash subject to payment of Rs.1000/- to be paid in District Legal Services Authority Chandigarh. Now to come up for cross examination of this witness as well as remaining evidence of the petitioner on 11.10.2010.” CR No.3463 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - On the adjourned date, the impugned order was passed which reads as follows: “Present: Counsel for the petitioner. Ms. Shelly Shuka, proxy counsel for respondent. Two PWs namely Om Parkash and Ravi Ahuja is present since morning 10.00 AM but their cross examination could not conducted as learned counsel for the respondent is not present. Case taken up again at 02.45 PM at the request of learned proxy counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared for cross examination or these witnesses. Today was the last opportunity for cross examination of PWs. No further wait is justified. Cross examination of PW Om Parkash be treated as nil. Now to come up for cross examination of PW Ravi Ahuja as well as remaining petitioner’s evidence on 10.12.2010.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is negligence on the part of his Advocate for not cross-examination of PW Om Parkash but one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice subject to payment of costs. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record from which I have found that there is no explanation tendered by the counsel about his absence from the Court at 10.00 AM and also at 2.45 PM. Rather he did not appear at all through out the day before the Court and in the absence of any explanation tendered by the petitioner, about the conduct of his counsel, in the revision petition, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order because the impugned order is justified and no fault can be found with the same. Insofar as the interest of justice is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that also weighs in favour of the landlord as the petitioner/tenant cannot take advantage of his own negligence. If he is aggrieved against the misconduct of the Advocate, whom he had engaged by paying his fee, who duped him by not CR No.3463 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - appearing in Court when he was required to appear, he is free to take appropriate legal action against him by filing petition before Consumer Court for deficiency of his service or by filing application before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana High Court for seeking cancellation of his license. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUNE 02, 2011 JUDGE Vivek