In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CR No. 3290 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 18.5.2011 Hem Lata @ Monu -- Petitioner Chander Mohar vs. --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. B.K.Bagri,Advocate,for the petitioner Rakesh Kumar Jain, J, (Oral) This revision petition is directed against order dated 23.2.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Rewari, by which evidence of the petitioner/landlord has been ordered to be closed on the ground that enough opportunity was granted to her for recording her evidence. Learned Court below has recorded five dates namely 28.1.2010, 28.4.2010, 16.9.2010, 20.1.2011 and 23.2.2011 in the impugned order. I have perused the zimni orders which have been placed on the record, out of which on 20.1.2011, the petitioner had examined three witnesses and the case was adjourned to 23.2.2011 for examination of the remaining witnesses at her own responsibility. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the landlord had filed two eviction petitions namely Case No.6 of 2009 (Hemlata @ Monu Vs. Chander Mohar) and Case No.7 of 2009 (Hemlata @ Monu Vs. Mahender). Both the cases are before the same Rent CR No.3290 of 2011 -2- Controller. In the other case namely Case No.7 of 2009 ((Hemlata @ Monu Vs. Mahender) two witnesses were present, out of which statement of one witness was recorded and examination-in-chief of the other witness Rajender Sharma was recorded by way of affidavit but his cross examination was deferred as the Court time was over. Learned counsel also submits that some more witnesses were to be examined in Case No.6 of 2009 (Hemlata @ Monu Vs. Chander Mohar), who were present but could not be examined as the Court time was over. He further submits that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner for not examining the witnesses on the date fixed, though they were present. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, I am satisfied that there is no fault on the part of the petitioner and the impugned order is not recorded in consonance with the proceedings which had taken placed in the Court. Hence, revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. 18.5.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge