S.S.SODHI,J - (1.) EXPUNCTION of remarks reflecting adversely upon the conduct and integrity of Mr. Sukhdev Aggarwal, Advocate of Hissar is the relief sought here. The offending remarks being contained in the order of the Rent Controller Mr. A.K. Raghava of September 11, 1985, whereby he dismissed the application filed by the landlord for permission to examine himself as witness. The Rent Controller had, by his earlier order of October 3, 1985, closed the evidence of the landlord. The matter pertained to the fixation of fair rent under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, at the instance of the landlord. The petitioner, Mr. Sukhdev Aggarwal, Advocate, being the counsel for the tenant.
(2.) A reference to the record would show that August 2, 1985 was the date fixed for the recording of the statement of the landlord. On that day, the order passed in the first instance was :- "Present : Application in person. Shri S.D. Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent. The applicant is present, but learned counsel for the applicant is not available. Case be called after sometime for the evidence of the applicant. Sd/- R.C. 2.8.1985". The later order whereby the evidence of the landlord was closed, read as under :- "Present: Counsel for the parties: Case called but learned counsel for the applicant states that he is busy in another Court. Further it is not a ground to adjourn the case merely on the ground that the counsel is busy in some other Court. Today was the last opportunity for recording the statement of applicant. The applicant has already been granted seven opportunities and the proceedings are being held up for the evidence of the applicant as the same has not been closed so far. As such the evidence of applicant is hereby closed, by the orders of the court. Now to come up on 3.9.1985 for R.Ws. P.F., DM be filled within two days failing which at his own responsibility. Sd......... R.C. 2.8.85."
(3.) ON August 5, 1985, counsel for the landlord filed an application praying that the landlord may be permitted to examine himself as his own witness as it was stated that his evidence had been closed for no fault of his. It was averred in this behalf that when the case was called at about 2-40 P.M., the counsel for the landlord attended the court, but the counsel for the tenant was not present. At 3-30 P.M., there was a farewell party Mr. B.R. Vohra, Additional District and Sessions Judge and Mr. Darshan Singh, Sub-Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Hissar, who had been transferred. The case was, therefore, ordered to be taken up after that party. Counsel for both the parties came to the court at 3.45 P.M. and remained there till 4.15 P.M., but the Presiding Officer of the court remained busy in his retiring room. Counsel then left the court at 4.15 P.M. assuming that the case would be adjourned to some other date. The case was, however, thereafter, taken up at 4.20 P.M. and the evidence of the landlord was ordered to be closed. It was also stated that the landlord himself was present when the case was called at 4.20 P.M. but his statement was not recorded nor was he asked to give any statement in court.;