AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 168 wordsSabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 4.12.2013 (Annexure P-7) whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (''CPC'' for short), was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier counsel of the petitioner had not properly cross-examined the landlord. Hence, it was very necessary for the just decision of the case to recall the landlord for further cross-examination.
In the present case, respondent has filed petition u/s 13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 seeking ejectment of the petitioner. Respondent appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner. Merely because now the petitioner has changed his counsel is no ground to recall the respondent for further cross-examination. In these circumstances, the learned Trial Court had rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC.
No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.