IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5706 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.9.2011 Kulwant Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Barjinder Singh ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) This is landlord's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 1.8.2011 whereby his application to recall the order dated 6.4.2011 has been rejected by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar. As per the averments made in this petition, an additional issue was framed by the Rent Controller vide its order dated 28.3.2011 which reads as under: “Whether the petitioner Kulwant Singh has purchased the shop in question from Paramjit Singh if not its effect? OPP” The petitioner was also given an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the aforesaid issue. However, on 6.4.2011, the counsel for the petitioner made the following statement before the Rent Controller: “Present: Counsel for the parties. Statement of Sh. Prince Tayal Advocate counsel for petitioner. The petitioner does not want to lead any further evidence after framing an additional issue 4C dated 28.3.2011 and earlier evidence of the petitioner be read in evidence.” On the basis of aforesaid statement, the Rent Controller passed the following order on 6.4.2011: “Present: Counsel for the parties. CR No.5706 of 2011 (O&M) -2- Today the counsel for the petitioner has made the statement that he does not want to lead any further evidence after framing of the additional issue and the evidence already adduced my be read as part of his evidence on the new issue. Statement recorded separately. Now to come up on 26.4.2011 for entire evidence of the respondent No.2. Subject to last opportunity as the case is old one and falls in category of Samadhan.” Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the application (Annexure P-5) for recalling of the aforesaid order i.e. 6.4.2011 to give permission to the petitioner to adduce evidence on the additional issue. It has been mentioned in the application that the aforesaid statement of the counsel was made without the instructions of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not be made to suffer on account of the statement made by his counsel. It is not disputed before this Court that the earlier counsel was engaged by the petitioner on his behalf and he was competent to defend the case and make any statement in this regard on behalf of the petitioner. Nothing could be shown before this Court to establish that it was necessary for the earlier lawyer to get instruction while proceeding with the case. The petitioner has not alleged any mala fide or fraud etc. on the part of his earlier counsel. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order. Dismissed. September 19, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE