- (1.) This revision petition by Om Parkash Wadehra has been filed against an order of the learned Rent Controller, Pathankot, dated Jan. 14, 1983, whereby he closed the evidence of the petitioner. It has been filed in the following circumstances :-
(2.) On January 2, 1981 Roshan Lal Wadehra filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Rent Restriction Act for ejectment of Om Parkash Wadehra, petitioner and four others from shop, situated at Pathankot. Numerous opportunities were given to the landlord to adduce the evidence. On October 4, 1981. The case was fixed for recording the evidence of the present petitioner-tenant on November 5, 1982. The case was adjourned to November 25, 1982, as the process fee and diet money etc. appear to have not been deposited. It was then adjourned to December 17, 1982. The order reads as under :- "Present : Counsel for the parties. No. R.W. is present. D.M. was deposited late Dasti summons be given to counsel for the respondent's evidence on 17.12.1982." On December 17, 1982, the case was adjourned to January 14, 1983. Process fee and diet money were deposited by the petitioner-tenant. Perhaps due to the shortage of time the service on the witness could not be effected. The Process Server reported that Shri Kidar Nath Pradhan, Shraf Union Androon Bazar was not available at the given address because he had gone out of station. The Shop Inspector, Pathankot, had made an endorsement on the summons that he had to appear in the court of Shri H.R. Nouhria, Senior Sub Judge, Gurdaspur, on January 14, 1983, and he had already been bound down by that court. The summons on the Sales-Tax Inspector and another witness could not be served perhaps because of shortage of time. The learned Rent Controller closed the evidence. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present revision petition.
(3.) When once the learned Rent Controller had ordered that the witnesses mentioned by the petitioner be summoned and process fee and diet money for their service had been deposited by the tenant-petitioner, the learned Rent Controller was not justified in closing the evidence of the petitioner. Two of the witnesses summoned were Government officials. The petitioner could not bring them along. The Shop Inspector could not appear, because he had already been bound down for this date by a court at Gurdaspur. Service had not been effected on the Sales-Tax Inspector. The petitioner-tenant was not in any way to blame. The learned Controller acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction by the closing evidence of the petitioner. It is a cardinal principle of justice that the parties to the litigation should be given full and adequate opportunity to adduce their evidence. Once the learned Rent Controller had ordered the summoning of certain witnesses and at least one of them had given a good reason for not being able to appear in court on that day the case should have been adjourned. The Sale-tax Inspector could not be contacted by the Process Server. The petitioner is not to blame for that. The learned Rent Controller after once having summoned witnesses should have procured their attendance. In the facts of the case the petitioner's evidence could not be closed. The order of the learned trial court is untenable and the same is set aside. The petitioner-tenant shall deposit their process fee and diet money. By 20th of November, 1983, the learned Rent Controller will issue summons for these witness. The petitioner undertakes to serve his witnesses himself. Summonses of the witnesses should be given to the petitioner dasti also. The learned Rent Controller shall issue the summonses for January 9, 1984, on which date the evidence of the present petitioner shall be recorded. No costs.;