Civil Revision No. 7375 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 7375 of 2010 Date of Decision: 14.12.2010 M/s Jain Traders …Petitioner Versus Kewal Krishan Jindal …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ghulam Nabi Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Kewal Krishan Jindal, respondent/landlord has stepped into the witness box as AW.1 and was to be cross-examined. It is submitted that on that day, due to unavoidable circumstances, learned counsel, who is pursuing the case on behalf of the petitioner/tenant, was not available and on the bidding of the Court, his associate Mr. Mohd. Izar, Advocate, who was not well conversant with the facts of the case, had cross-examined AW.1 Kewal Krishan Jindal. Thereafter, immediately, an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC was filed by the tenant stating that the counsel, who is handling the case, be allowed to cross- examine AW.1 Kewal Krishan Jindal and for the said purpose, the witness be recalled. The application, so filed by the petitioner/tenant, was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, vide his order dated Civil Revision No. 7375 of 2010 2 25.9.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a grave prejudice has been caused to the tenant as the defence could not be brought into light by learned counsel, who was well aware about the facts of the case and he has been deprived of the meaningful cross- examination of AW.1 Kewal Krishan Jindal. Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent/landlord, submits that under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC, if the witness is to be recalled, the questions can be put by the Court. It is further submitted that if the witness is recalled and subjected to cross- examination, the petitioner may fill up the lacuna. This Court always held that journey of the Court is to find truth and not to score points or punish anybody, if anybody is remiss in his duties he cannot be foreclosed for all times to project his defence. After all, the Courts are for delivery of justice. Accordingly, the present revision petition is accepted. The application, filed by the petitioner/tenant under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is accepted. The Rent Controller, Malerkotla, shall fix a date on which further cross-examination of AW.1 Kewal Krishan Jindal shall be carried out. The Rent Controller shall record the evidence and will be at liberty to disallow the unnecessary questions. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is causing unnecessary delay in culmination of the proceedings, therefore, the Rent Controller be directed to conclude the proceedings within a specified time. To this, learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection. Civil Revision No. 7375 of 2010 3 Accordingly, the Rent Controller, Malerkotla, is directed to decide the eviction petition within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 14, 2010 “DK”