Yashpal v. Kailash Chander etc

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH ....Respondents Present: Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Tenant/petitioner is in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution primarily assailing the order dated 29.2.2012 (P.1) whereby the learned Rent Controller, Hansi recorded the cross examination of two witnesses of the landlord, namely, Kailash and Jai Bhagwan to be closed by the order of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has prayed for one opportunity to complete the cross examination of the aforesaid two witnesses subject to payment of costs since on all the earlier occasions when adjournment for completing cross examination was sought, was not on account of the request on behalf of the tenant. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the eviction petition under Section C.R.No.6339 of 2012(O&M) #2# 13 of the Haryana Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1973 was instituted by the landlord on 17.4.2008.

It is conceded that the completion of the remaining cross examination of the witnesses, namely, Kailash and Jai Bhagwan, was pending since 25.8.2011 and till the date of passing of the impugned order (P/1) on five occasions, they were present for completion of their remaining cross examination but the opportunities were not availed by the learned counsel for the tenant for some reason or the other. Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as State of U.P Vs. Shambhu Nath Singh, 2001 (4) SCC 667 has observed that the witnesses, who appear in courts should be treated as guests and the Courts should endeavour to complete their evidence at the earliest. Hon'ble Supreme Court further in a recent case reported as Shiv Cotex Vs. Tirgun Auto Plast Private Limited and Others, (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 678 has held that the embargo of three opportunities for completion of the evidence of the parties under Proviso to Rule 1 of Order 17 of Civil Procedure Code has to be adhered and deviation from the same should only be permitted on justifiable and sufficient cause.

In para 17 of this judgment, it has been observed as under: “17. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non- availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar C.R.No.6339 of 2012(O&M) #3# grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit- whether the plaintiff or the defendant-must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed.

If they don't, they do so at their own peril.” In the present case, it is evident that the tenant has not been vigilant in pursuing his case and, therefore, in view of the facts of the case and the settled principles of law, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Dismissed. November 06, 2012 ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE