C.R. No.7927 of 2010 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7927 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 06.12.2010. Subhash Chand and another .……Petitioners Versus Kailashwati ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioners. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) CM No.31097-CII of 2010 Allowed as prayed for. Main Case. Defendants have filed the instant revision petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 08.11.2010 Annexure P-5 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal thereby dismissing defendants' application Annexure P-3 for recall of witnesses of the plaintiff-respondent for further cross-examination. Respondent has filed suit against the petitioners for possession of the suit property by ejectment alleging that petitioners are tenants in the suit property under the respondent and their tenancy stands terminated. Petitioners in their written statement Annexure P-2 admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, but denied receipt of notice of termination of tenancy and also C.R. No.7927 of 2010 (O & M) -2- pleaded applicability of the provisions of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 and also raised various other pleas. In application Annexure P-3, the defendants alleged that they have denied the ownership of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. It was also alleged that some material questions could not be put to the witnesses of the plaintiff and, therefore, it is necessary to recall them for further cross-examination. The said application has been dismissed by the trial Court by impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that some material questions are to be put to the plaintiff's witnesses and, therefore, they are required to be recalled for further cross- examination. I find no merit in the contention. As noticed hereinbefore, in the written statement, defendants/petitioners specifically admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties qua the suit property and no where denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property. In spite thereof, defendants in their application Annexure P-3 wrongly alleged that they have denied the ownership of the plaintiff-respondent in respect of the suit property. On the contrary, question of ownership is not even required to be adjudicated upon in the suit for possession by ejectment and only question of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is relevant and the same stands specifically admitted by the defendants/petitioners in their written statement. The defendants in their application Annexure P-3 did not specify as to what material questions could not be put to the plaintiff's C.R. No.7927 of 2010 (O & M) -3- witnesses and for what purpose, their further cross-examination is required, but taking a hint from averments in paragraph 3 of the application, it appears that defendants want to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses regarding plaintiff's ownership over the suit property. However, as noticed hereinbefore, ownership of the plaintiff over the suit property is not relevant for adjudication of the suit whereas relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, which is relevant for adjudication of the suit, stands specifically admitted by the defendants-petitioners in their written statement. From the aforesaid, it becomes manifest that application Annexure P-3 moved by the defendants/petitioners is completely frivolous and meritless and has been moved to only delay the disposal of the suit. The application has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial Court so as to warrant interference in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 06.12.2010. A. Kaundal