LAL CHAND Vs. KISHAN MURARI GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 19. 9. 1994 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Hisar permitting the respondents tenant to recall the witness Om Parkash has been challenged in this petition filed under Section 151 C. P. C.

(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff-petitioners for ejectment is pending against the respondents before the learned Rent Controller, Hisar. Evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners has been completed. When the case was fixed for the evidence of the tenant (defendant-respondent No. 1), on 16. 8. 1994 the tenant made a statement that he had changed his Advocate on that day itself and requested that he may be given one more opportunity. He undertook to produce all witnesses on the next date. On the same very day, the tenant made another statement that witness Om Parkash had been won over by the petitioners after the last date of hearing and, therefore, he did not want to examine the said witness. The case was adjourned to the next date. On the adjourned date an application was made on behalf of the respondent-defendant (tenant) purportedly under Order 18, Rules 17 and 17-A, C. P. C, for examination of Om Parkash as a witness. The landlord-petitioner opposed the application on the ground that the said witness had already been given up by the tenant on the previous date and there was no legal justification to permit the tenant to examine the same witness.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has stated before this Court that Om Parkash has already been examined before the Court on 3. 10. 1994. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement that Om Parkash has not been cross-examined by the counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners because the latter had already filed a revision petition before this Court and a notice had already been issued therein.