M/s. Rajesh Vij and Co. vs Partap Singh

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.—The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on various grounds. It is not in dispute that on completion of pleadings, issues were framed by the Rent Controller, Amritsar and thereafter, one Sh. Amarjeet Singh was appointed as Local Commissioner to record the statements of the witnesses of the respondent-landlord. On 11.4.2013, the statement of AW-1 Tilak Raj was completed and thereafter, examination-in-chief of AW-2 Partap Singh and AW-3 Arvinder Singh, Draftsman, was also recorded by way of affidavits and the case was adjourned to 8.5.2013 for cross-examination of the aforesaid witnesses. On 8.5.2013, AW-2 Partap Singh i.e. the respondent-landlord was present. However, he could not be cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner. Vide order dated 8.5.2013, the case was adjourned to 6.7.2013 for remaining evidence of applicant/respondent-landlord at his own risk and responsibility by observing nil opportunity for cross-examination of the respondent-landlord i.e. AW-2, as counsel for the petitioner had failed to cross-examine the said witness as observed in the impugned order.

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that the provisions of CPC are handmaid for administration of justice and are to be construed liberally. He has further submitted that without going into the veracity of the impugned order, he prays that in the interest of justice, one opportunity be given to the petitioner-tenant to cross-examine the respondent-landlord-AW-2 on the date fixed i.e. 25.7.2013. It has been further stated that the respondent-landlord can be well compensated with costs and no prejudice will be caused to him as the case is still fixed for remaining evidence of the respondent-landlord.

Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer made and has submitted that on 8.5.2013, the respondent-landlord was present throughout the day and the petitioner was repeatedly directed by the Rent Controller to call his counsel for cross-examination of the witnesses but no one turned up and even the proxy counsel was directed to cross-examine the witness but he showed his inability to do the same.

Though after seeing the conduct of the petitioner, there cannot be any justification to find fault with the order of the Rent Controller yet in the interest of justice, this Court allows the prayer made in this petition and grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent-landlord on the next date of hearing i.e. 25.7.2013 subject to payment of costs which are assessed at Rs. 10,000/-. The respondent-landlord shall be present before the Rent Controller on the date fixed.

It may further be observed that payment of costs shall be condition precedent for allowing the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent-landlord. It is further observed that no further opportunity shall be granted to the tenant-petitioner to cross-examine the said witness. Disposed of.