IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No.114 of 2006. Date of decision: 8.4.2008. Harjit Singh ….Petitioner Versus Chain Singh ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.R.K.Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Naveen Bhardwaj, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr.Sunil Chauhan, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This revision has been filed by the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, against the order dated 20.6.2006 which records that one PW has been examined and a prayer has been made for examining the other witnesses of the petitioner. The Court observes that sufficient opportunities having been granted to the respondent, no further opportunity could be granted for examining their remaining evidence. The main ground urged by the petitioner for having the order set aside is that 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 the counsel Shri Ashok Jain, who was appearing for the petitioner, had obtained dasti summons for the service of other witnesses which could not be served because he had to take his wife to Chandigarh for medical treatment. The learned Court below has taken a hyper technical view of the matter and should have considered the fact that the counsel’s absence was not deliberate or intended to delay the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Rent Controller is quashed and set aside. A direction is issued to the Rent Controller to proceed further in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Records, if received, be sent back immediately. All interim orders made stand vacated and miscellaneous applications filed shall stand dismissed. April 8, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.