Civil Revision No. 6206 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Civil Revision No. 6206 of 2008 Date of Decision 15.7.2009 Sadrick Sohanlal .... Petitioner. Versus Guru Nanak Dev University .... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present:- Mr. B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. J.S.Puri, Advocate, for the respondent. Surya Kant, J. (oral) Petitioner is aggrieved at the order dated 21.7.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar whereby, in application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C, his evidence has been ordered to be closed. He is also aggrieved at the order dated 31.7.2008 dismissing his application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C moved to set aside the ex-parte eviction order dated 7.2.2005. The petitioner had taken a shop on lease from the respondent- University on 4.9.2000 and claims to have surrendered possession thereof in April 2001. On the other hand, the respondent-University filed an ejectment application under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 which was allowed ex-parte against the petitioner vide order dated Civil Revision No. 6206 of 2008 2 7.2.2005. The respondent-University is stated to have taken possession of the premises in execution of the said ex-parte order. Meanwhile, the petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C to set aside the ex-parte eviction order, as, according to him, the possession of the shop had already been surrendered by him in April 2001. In other wards, the petitioner wanted to dispute his liability to pay any rent to the University till it took the possession of premises by way of execution. In the said application the petitioner appears to have file his affidavit in examination in-chief, but failed to appear for his cross- examination. The Rent Controller vide one of the impugned order dated 21.7.2008, therefore, closed the petitioner's evidence and than dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C vide another impugned order dated 31.7.2008. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that given one opportunity, he will lead the entire evidence at his own responsibility. He submits that the petitioner could not appear for his cross-examination for the reasons beyond his control as he was suffering from de-hydration. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and the petitioner's undertaking that he is willing to adduce his entire evidence at his own responsibility, I am of the considered view that let one more opportunity be granted to the petitioner to produce his remaining evidence especially when the respondent- University can be compensated with cost. Since the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has Civil Revision No. 6206 of 2008 3 been dismissed for want of evidence, the said application also deserves to reconsidered. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.7.2008 and 31.7.2008 are set aside and the Rent Controller, Amritsar is directed to grant one but last opportunity to the petitioner to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, thereafter, shall be decided on merits in the light of the evidence on record and uninfluenced of the previous order dated 31.7.2008. However, above given opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to the respondent- University. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to tender the costs in Court on the first date of hearing, no such opportunity shall be granted. Parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller on 26.8.2009. Disposed of accordingly. Dasti. July 15, 2009 (Surya Kant) tripti Judge