Civil Revision No. 2514 of 2010 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2514 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.4.2010 Om Parkash ...Petitioner Versus Rishi Sudhakar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sumeet Mahajan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Kohar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Walia, Advocate for the respondents. S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner herein (defendant before the learned Trial Court) applied for the issuance of a direction to AW-4 to produce the balance sheet and account books of the concerned company (of which the witness aforementioned is the Accounts Manager). The averment made was that those account books are required for cross- examination of AW-4 himself. The allowance of the plea was resisted by the party opposite. The plea came to be declined by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 13.4.2010 by observing that the plea had been raised after inordinate delay of about two years and that the plea appears to have been filed only with a view to delay the trial. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, states that the charge of having caused delay does not stick to the petitioner herein as the witness did not present himself for Civil Revision No. 2514 of 2010 -2- **** cross-examination for a number of dates. It is also argued that the production of the relevant record during the cross-examination to be directed at AW-4 in the light thereof shall enable the learned Trial Court to dispose of the suit effectively. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed on record photo copies of the zimini orders for the period 5.4.2008 to 19.4.2010. It would be apparent, from a perusal of the interim orders, that there is no factual inaccuracy in the observations made by the learned Rent Controller. There are number of dates on which cross- examination could not be directed upon that witness i.e. AW-4 on account of non availability of the counsel for the petitioner herein. In that view of things, the petitioner herein cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the predicament of facing a charge that it was he only who was accountable for having caused delay. The affidavit of AW-4 (in lieu of the examination in chief) was tendered on 5.11.2008. It took the petitioner herein about two years to decide about whether the relevant record should be requisitioned or not. The cross-examination was deferred on that date on 10.11.2008. Rishi Sudhakar was present but could not be examined on account of non-availability of counsel for the petitioner herein. The same position obtained on 22.11.2008, 12.13.2008, 3.1.2009, 9.4.2009. On 11.8.2009 Rishi Sudhakar was present but he could not be examined on account of shortage of time. The petitioner is indeed open to the charge of having delayed the filing of plea aforementioned about two years. Apart therefrom, as correctly Civil Revision No. 2514 of 2010 -3- **** observed by the learned Trial Court the relevant plea does not indicate the period to which record to be brought was relateable. In view, thus, of the fact that plea had indeed been filed after inordinate delay of two years and it (plea) did not contain the relevant particulars, there is no case for interference. The petition shall stand dismissed accordingly. The impugned order dated 13.4.2010 shall stand affirmed. April 21, 2010 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge