IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 88 of 2009 (M/S) With Restoration Application No. 683 / 09 Delay Condonation Appn. No. 7978 / 09 [ Ashok Kumar Lohani S/o Sri Ramesh Chandra Lohani R/o Meera Marg, Haldwani, District Nainital. ...…………. Applicant / Petitioner Versus Sri Lalit Mohan Kandpal S/o Sri Jagdish Chandra R/o Sadar Market, Haldwani, District Nainital. ...………… Respondent Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for the applicant / petitioner. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. This is Application No. 7978 of 2009, for condonation of delay in moving the Restoration Application M.C.C. No. 683 of 2009, for restoration of Writ Petition No. 88 (M/S) of 2009, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.08.2009. 2 2) Heard and perused the affidavit accompanying the application. There is delay of 8 days in moving the restoration application, which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by Ashok Kumar Lohani (applicant). Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3) Also, heard on restoration application and perused the affidavit accompanying the application, in which the absence has sufficiently been explained. Therefore, the restoration application is allowed. 4) The writ petition is restored to its original number. 5) Learned counsel for the parties to the writ petition agreed that this writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally today itself. 6) On the request of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was heard on merits. 7) By means of this writ petition, the petitioner (who is tenant / opposite party before the Prescribed Authority) has challenged the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haldwani, in Rent Control Case No. 01 of 2007. 8) Vide impugned order dated 07.01.2009, the Prescribed Authority has closed the evidence of the opposite party (present petitioner) as too many 3 adjournments have been sought by him for adducing his evidence in the aforesaid rent control case No. 01 of 2007. 9) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, in the interest of justice, one last chance is given to the petitioner (who is opposite party before the Prescribed Authority) to adduce his evidence. 10) Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, and the order dated 07.01.2009, is quashed to the extent the evidence of the opposite party has been closed, with the observation that in the interest of justice, the petitioner (opposite party before the Prescribed Authority) is allowed to adduce his evidence as a last chance on 5th of October 2009, failing which this writ petition shall stand dismissed, and the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by the Prescribed Authority, shall stand upheld. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the case as expeditiously as possible. Interim order dated 14.01.2009, passed by this Court, stands vacated. [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 15, 2009. H. Negi 4