IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.19908 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 18.11.2011 Ranjit Lal ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Devender Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. C.M.No.15596 of 2011 C.M. is allowed. Annexure P-7 is taken on record. C.W.P.No.19908 of 2011 The petitioner impugns the orders Annexure P-5 and P-6. He is facing prosecution for eviction under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Haryana Public Premises Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1972. These proceedings were initiated on 30.3.2007. During this course the petitioner was granted several opportunities to lead his evidence. The zimni orders which have been placed on record reveal that significant opportunities were given to the petitioner to adduce his evidence which he failed to do without any jusifiable cause. He then moved an application for recalling one Wazir Beniwal, SDO Water Services and also sought permission to cross-examine him. C.W.P.No.19908 of 2011 -2- This witness had been examined earlier but the petitioner's counsel did not cross-examine him. It is for this reason that significant opportunities were given to the petitioner which he failed to avail and subsequently filed the aforesaid application for recalling the said witness. Interestingly, the order dated 25.5.2011, which is impugned herein, also refers to some decision taken by the Court on 30.3.2007. Neither this order nor the application leading to this order have been placed on record, as a result of which the Court is precluded from examining the correctness of the observations made in the order. Repeated questions to the learned counsel for the petitioner have failed to elicit any enlightenment on the issue. The petition is more than silent on the subject. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner, who faces the proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises and Land Eviction and Rent Recovery Act, 1972, has only tried to delay the proceedings by initially not adducing any evidence despite significant opportunities and then moving application for recalling the witness without any justifiable cause. Apart from this, as observed earlier, the petition is silent on material particulars and the order does not reveal as to what transpired on 30.3.2007. As a result of this, the Court is deprived of any explanation about the various facets of the case. Despite opportunities granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner on an earlier occasion, no such material has been placed on record. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders for the reasons which have been stated above, more so when the only C.W.P.No.19908 of 2011 -3- explanation given before this Court for the lapse on the part of the petitioner is that counsel for the petitioner was negligent in conducting the proceedings. I am afraid, such explanations have to be taken with a pinch of salt. There is also no material to suggest what transpired between 2007 to 2009, which could have been indicative of the order passed on 30.3.2007. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 18.11.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss