IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 307 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.09.2010 Rajesh Kumar …Petitioner. Versus Jit Kumar & another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Kangra, whereby she rejected the prayer of the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tenant’) to grant him another opportunity to lead evidence. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that earlier also the evidence of the tenant was closed and the tenant filed a petition in this Court, which was registered as CMPMO No. 441 of 2009, in which, with the consent of the parties, an order was passed 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 granting the tenant one more opportunity to produce his evidence. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows: “The impugned order dated 28.3.2009 is set-aside subject to the petitioner’s paying costs of Rs. 2500/- to the respondent. Ordered accordingly. The petitioner’s undertaking is taken on record. He shall at his own risk, responsibility, costs and consequences produce and examine his entire evidence on 18.9.2009. No further opportunity shall be granted to him for the said purpose.” 3. In view of the clear cut undertaking given by the petitioner and accepted by this Court, no further opportunity can be granted. It has been urged by Mr. Sanjay Jaswal, Advocate, that two of the witnesses were unserved and, therefore, could not appear and hence, one more opportunity may be granted. I am constrained to observe that the petitioner has given an undertaking that it shall be his responsibility to produce and examine the witnesses. This responsibility includes the responsibility to serve the witnesses. Since the petitioner has failed to serve or produce his witnesses, the Rent Controller was fully justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner. 4. I find no error in this order and the petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Deepak Gupta) Judge September 22, 2010 (rajni)