CR No.6567 of 2010 (O&M) -1- ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.6567 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:03.02.2011. Kartar Singh ...Petitioner Versus Mohinder Pal alias Mohinder Kumar ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Achin Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 21.09.2010 by which an application filed by the petitioner for re-calling of Kartar Singh and his son Hardev Singh for re-examination in order to tender the original rent note in the examination-in-chief, has been dismissed. It is submitted that the eviction petition is filed by Kartar Singh whose cross-examination is yet to be conducted. At the time when Kartar Singh was examined, he had tendered photostat copy of the rent note Ex.A1 which was specifically objected to by counsel for the respondent on the ground that photostat copy without any stamp duty cannot be taken into consideration and the said objection was kept open by the learned Rent Controller to be decided at the time of arguments. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in order to overcome that objection, the petitioner has now filed this application for re-examination of Kartar Singh and his son Hardev Singh for the purpose of producing on record the original rent note in his examination-in-chief. It is also submitted that had the original rent note been available with the landlord, then there was no occasion for him not to produce the same on record when he was CR No.6567 of 2010 (O&M) -2- ***** examined in chief and now after availing 10 opportunities, the re-examination cannot be allowed and the application has rightly been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller. He also, in the form of alternative, states that in case this Court takes another view for the purpose of granting permission, the respondent may be adequately compensated by way of costs. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The very basis of the eviction petition is the rent note. At the time when Kartar Singh (landlord) was examined in chief, along with his affidavit, he had produced on record the photostat copy of the rent note Ex.A1 regarding which an objection was raised by the tenant and the objection was kept open by the learned Rent Controller to be decided at the time of arguments. Then, an application is filed by the landlord for the purpose of re-calling Kartar Singh and his son Hardev Singh for re-examination in order to produce original rent note on the ground that due to inadvertence, the same could not be produced and the photostat copy of the rent note was produced instead. Although, Hardev Singh has already been examined and cross-examined and Kartar Singh is yet to be cross-examined as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, only Kartar Singh could be re-called for the purpose of tendering the original rent note on record and not Hardev Singh. To my mind, in the given circumstance, permission can be granted for the purpose of re-calling of Kartar Singh for re-examination in order to tender the original rent note and the respondent can be compensated by imposing costs upon the petitioner. In view of the above discussion, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and Kartar Singh is allowed to be re-called for the purpose of re-examination only to tender the original rent note on record, subject to the payment of `10,000/- as costs. February 03, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE