IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.7910 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.12.2011 Sunita Sharma -----Petitioner Vs. Sarabjit Singh & others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. 1. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the order dated 21.11.2011 of the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby prayer of the petitioner for recalling PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their cross- examination was rejected. 2. While passing the impugned order, the Rent Controller observed as under:- “After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, going through the file minutely, this Court finds that in the head note of the present application, respondent has sought recalling of PW.1, 2 and 3 and reason has been assigned only for P.W.3 and there is no reason assigned by the respondent and circumstances as to why P.W1 and 2 could not be cross examined. P.W.1 Tara Singh, P.W.2 C.R. No.7910 of 2011 Harvinder Singh were examined in chief on 20.10.2009 and thereafter there cross examination was deferred, whereas P.W3 Ranjodh Singh was examined in chief on 17.7.2010 and accordingly his cross examination was also deferred. Thereafter on 17.5.2010 both P.Ws1 and 2 offered themselves for cross examination but none from the side of respondent has come forward to conduct the cross examination and accordingly court passed the order regarding treating their cross examination NIL. Similarly on 27.10.2010 P.W3 has come present and offered himself to face the cross examination, but learned counsel for the respondent was present in the court and he did not opt to cross examine him and accordingly cross examination of P.W3 was ordered to be treated as NIL. Sufficient opportunities have been given to respondent to conduct the cross examination on the above P.Ws but respondent has miserably failed to conduct the cross examination on above P.Ws inspite of the fact that they have been appearing in the court to face the cross examination and they offered themselves for cross examination. In case the witnesses are recalled, there would be no end of adjournments as already numerous effective opportunities have been granted to respondent to conduct the cross examination on above witnesses and no cogent reasons have been assigned by the respondent as there is no written intimation to the court regarding withdrawal of her power of attorney in favour of Mr. J.S. Bhogal advocate earlier counsel of the respondent. In case she was present on 27.10.2010 in the court alongwith clerk of her counsel, it was her duty to appraise the court above the facts narrated by her in the present application which she has miserably failed nor her newly counsel engaged has come forward before the court to appraise the fact. The application has been filed at the belated stage just to delay the proceedings of the petition as respondent has already availed the opportunities to conduct the cross 2 C.R. No.7910 of 2011 examination on said witnesses, so I find no merits in the present application and reason to allow the application and accordingly the application in hand stands dismissed.” 3. It is not disputed that cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 was ordered to be treated Nil on 20.10.2009 whereas cross- examination of PW-3 was treated Nil vide order dated 27.10.20010. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were present in Court on 20.10.2009 and 27.10.2010 respectively, however, counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine the aforesaid witnesses despite opportunity granted. Thus, their cross-examination was treated as nil. It is also a matter of record that despite the aforesaid orders, which were passed way back on 20.10.2009 and 27.10.2010, the petitioner moved an application for recalling the aforesaid witnesses only on 24.2.2011. It is relevant to notice that the averments made in this application which read thus:- “2. That the ejectment petition mentioned above is pending in this Hon’ble Court for 4.3.2011 for evidence of the respondent/tenant. 3. That in this case, Shri J.S. Bhogal Advocate was engaged by the respondent/applicant long time back but in the year 2008, she had engaged Shri Ramesh Lakhanpal, Advocate in this case. 4. That on 27.10.2010 the respondent/applicant was personally present outside the court along with Munshi of her counsel Shri Ramesh Lakhanpal, Advocate, but she did not hear the call of the case and so she remained standing outside the court till 5.00 PM to wait for call of her case. 5. That on the next day, she came to her counsel and on enquiry, it was discovered that cross-examination of PW-3 namely Ranjodh Singh was treated as Nil on 27.10.2010.” 3 C.R. No.7910 of 2011 4. From the perusal of the aforesaid averments, it is clear that the petitioner was well in the knowledge of aforesaid orders dated 20.10.2009 and 27.10.2010 immediately after passing thereof, still the petitioner had filed the instant application on 4.2.2011 only. Even in the said application, no grievance has been raised regarding the order dated 20.10.2009. Not only this, it is case of the petitioner that the factum of presence Shri J.S. Bhogal, Advocate, earlier counsel, on 27.10.2010 had come to the notice of her counsel Shri Ramesh Lakhanpal, Advocate. Still the petitioner had not filed any complaint against her earlier counsel. There is nothing on record in the shape of any affidavit etc. of Shri Ramesh Lakhanpal, Advocate to support her contentions. Not only this, admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any complaint against not calling of her case on 27.10.2010 or recording of the presence of her earlier counsel in the zimni order dated 27.10.2010. It seems that the petitioner-tenant wanted to delay the proceedings before the Rent Controller. Moreover, despite opportunity granted, the counsel for the petitioner had not chosen to cross-examine the witnesses. Furthermore, the petitioner has not given any reason for not cross-examining the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 on 20.10.2009, nor any explanation is forthcoming with regard to filing the application after such a long time of passing of aforesaid order dated 20.10.2009. 5. Thus, no fault can be found with the aforesaid order. 6. Dismissed. December 20, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 4