IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6050 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th November, 2009. Dr. Harjit Singh Petitioner through Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate Versus Baldev Singh Bains @ Pammi Respondents through Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 22.08.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar whereby an application moved by the petitioner – tenant to set aside the ex-parte proceedings, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondent – landlord has put in appearance. The respondent – landlord has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner for vacation of the demised premises situated on Pathankkot Road, near Sidhu Hospital, Jalandhar. The petitioner was duly served and he also filed written statement through his counsel. However, on the date when the respondent – landlord was to lead his evidence, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 29.1.2008 and he was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte. The petitioner – tenant waited for more than one year and it was only on 08.04.2009 when the eviction proceedings were still pending, that he moved an application to set aside the ex-parte proceedings . The plea taken by the petitioner – tenant was that his counsel Shri R.K.Bhalla, Advocate had telephonically informed him that he need not come present in Court on any date and his interest would be fully protected. Thereafter, the petitioner – tenant is alleged to have suffered an acute back-ache and had to undergo operation of Lumber Vertebra 5/5 at MAX Hospital, Delhi followed by the advice of Doctor for complete bed rest. It was claimed that only after his recovery, the petitioner contacted his counsel and came to know that he has been proceeded against ex-parte. The afore-stated application has been dismissed by the Rent Controller, Jalandhar after observing that surgery was performed on the petitioner on 02.07.2008 and he was discharged from the Hospital on 04.07.2008, whereas he had already been proceeded against ex-parte on 29.01.2008. There is, thus, no explanation as to why the petitioner could not contact his counsel prior to his admission in the hospital on 02.07.2008 or what prevented him from finding out the fate of his case after he was discharged from the hospital on 04.07.2008? I have heard counsel for the parties at some length. There can indeed be no doubt that the petitioner has exhibited grossest negligence on his part and now he wants to gain sympathy for the unforeseen reasons, like undergoing surgery by him. But the fact remains that even after he was proceeded against ex-parte on 29.1.2008, the eviction petition remained pending till the petitioner filed an application on 8.4.2009 for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings. Even now the case has not been concluded. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller could have permitted the petitioner to join the proceedings at the stage when he applied and in the interest of justice permit him to lead his evidence, though the conduct of the petitioner undoubtedly dis-entitles him further relief like recalling of the respondent – landlord's witnesses for their cross-examination. The respondent – landlord could be compensated with suitable costs for the further delay. For the reasons afore-stated, I am of the considered view that it would be in the interest of justice and fair play to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed in part; the impugned order dated 22.8.2009 is hereby modified and it is directed that the petitioner – tenant shall be granted only one opportunity to produce the entire evidence at his own responsibility. However, the petitioner – tenant shall not be entitled to re-call the witnesses of the respondent – landlord for their cross-examination. With a view to send a message loud and clear, it is directed that the petitioner – tenant shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent – landlord and only then he shall be permitted to lead his evidence, as directed above. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 28, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE