Pt. Munshi Ram vs Jang Bir Bhai

J.V. Gupta, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order of the Rent Controller, Chandigarh, dated December 14, 1985, whereby the tenant was directed to effect service of the summons on his witnesses dasti for January 6, 1986 The impugned order reads:-

No R W. it present neither summoned nor produced. Adjournment is being prayed. Respondent is directed to effect their summons for 6.1.86.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that there was no occasion for the learned Rent Controller to direct the tenant to take dasti summons for effecting service on his witnesses. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied upon Joginder Singh Bakshi v. Gajjan Singh, 1978(2) R L. R 682 Hari Chand v. Gian Nath Bansal 1978 (2) R C J. 282 and Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh and Another Vs. Raj Singh Baldev Kishen, .

After hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and going through the aforesaid rulings, I do not find any merit in this contention.

Primarily, no revision petition is maintainable against such an order. Vide impugned order, the tenant was directed to effect service of the summons on his witnesses by taking the summons dasti. Instead of making any effort for effecting the service as directed, he filed the present revision petition. The whole effect on his part seems to delay the proceedings. The ejectment application on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord is pending since December, 1983. Though the landlord closed his evidence in November, 1985, because of certain amendment in the ejectment application, yet there is nothing illegal or improper in the impugned order when the learned Rent Controller directed the tenant to take dasti summons for his witnesses It is inherent in the Court or the tribunal to direct the parties to take dasti summons to avoid delay in the determinatior of the proceedings as no party has the right to delay the same Rather, the duty of every party is to help the Court or the tribunal in the speedy disposal of the litigation. Moreover, the Court has the in-herent powers to refuse to summon witnesses if it finds that the issue of summons would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court In this behalf the provisions of Order XVI Rule 7-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by way of amendment, also become relevant when they provide for the taking of the dasti summons the service of which shall be effected by or on behalf of such party by delivery or tender to the witness personally a copy thereof without the assistance of the Court process server. Thus, it is quite evident that the Court could always direct the party to take dasti summons for the service of his witnesses Therefore, no illegality or impropriety could be painted out in the impugned order. The authorities relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner have absolutely no applicability to the facts of the present case

In Joginder Singh Bakshi''s case (supra), the evidence of the tenant was closed though on earlier dates he had deposited the process-fee and diet money for summoning witnesses, in time, but process was not issued even once and then, he was ordered to produce his witnesses. It was in these circumstances held therein that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to fix the tenant with the responsibility to produce his evidence

Rather, in Hari Chand''s case (supra) it was observed in the concluding paragraph of the judgment as follows:-

He (the Rent Controller) can, at the most, direct the Petitioner to take the sum monies of the witnesses Dasti so that the case may be disposed of earlier. In case the witnesses are not served in spite of best efforts that will be no ground for refusing adjournment in the case.

As observed earlier, in the present case, the tenant never took the summonses dasti to serve his witnesses.

Balwant Singh''s case (supra), has also no applicability to the case in hand That is a ease which relates to the period prior to the amendment of the CPC in 1976. Then Rule 7-A of Order 16 of the Code was not there. In the absence of such a provision, the observations to the effect that,-

Summonses cannot be refused on the ground that party had refused to bring his witnesses himself or to carry out an illegal order of the Court for Dasti service on the witnesses Only if the Court finds that the issue of the summonses would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, has it the inherent power to refuse to summon witnesses.

made therein may have some relevance then but now with the introduction of Rule 7A ibid, the whole complexion has changed With the aid of that Rule, the Court or the Tribunal under the inherent powers can direct, in suitable cases, the party concerned, to take Dasti summons of his witnesses for quick disposal of the case. There, fore, the said judgment is also of no avail to the Petitioner.

In the present case, the learned Rent Controller passed the impugned order because no witness of the tenant was present, neither summoned nor produced on the day the impugned order was passed. Under the circumstances, the Rent Controller directed him to take dasti summons and thus, the learned Rent Controller was within his jurisdiction to direct the tenant to take dasti summons for the service of his witnesses

Consequently, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with costs

It has been stated at the bar that January 30, 1986, is the next date fixed before the Rent Controller The tenant will produce his evidence on that date to be fixed at his own responsibility. ever, dasti summons may be given to him if so desired as provided under Order XVI Rule 7-A of the above said Code.