HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6425 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 09.11.2009 **** Shyam Sunder . . . . Petitioner VS. Nanag Ram & Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner None for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). Only respondent No.1 to 3 are the contesting respondents. Counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No.3 has been duly served, whereas respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not be served as they were found residing at a different place. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondent No.3. (2). This revision petition is directed by the respondent-tenant against the order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby, the evidence of the petitioner has been closed after availing 6-7 opportunities. (3). Counsel for the petitioner states that given one opportunity, he will produce the entire evidence at his own responsibility. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and in the interest of justice, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 19.09.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul is hereby set aside with a direction to the Rent Controller, Narnaul to grant only one opportunity to the petitioner to produce his entire evidence at his own responsibility and subject to cost of Rs.5000/-. The petitioner is directed to produce his entire evidence on the date fixed before the trial Court i.e. 19.11.2009. (5). Disposed of. (6). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 09.11.2009 vishal shonkar