SHRI D.P. BHASKAR Vs. T.R. MANAKTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent filed a petition under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter called 'the Act') for ejectment of the petitioner. The evidence of the respondent was closed on September 24, 1977. On this date, the petitioner was ordered to produce his evidence on November 4, 1977, and to file the list of witnesses and the process fee etc. within three days. On September 24, 1977, the witness of the petitioner were not present. According to the petitioner, the diet money had been deposited on July 27, 1977 and had also filed the talbana. The same was, however, not found on the record. In these circumstances, the Rent Controller ordered that the talbana be traced out or in the alternative, fresh proces fee be filed within two days. It was further ordered that service of the witnesses residing out of Chandigarh should be effected through dasti summonses. That order has been challenged to the extent that the petitioner has been made liable to take dasti summonses for those witnesses who are residing out of Chandigarh.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had summoned three witnesses out of whom two are residents of Chandigarh and one of Kapurthala. It is contended that as the petitioner had filed the process fee for all the witnesses within time, though the diet money was deposited on July 27, 1977, the Rent Controller was not justified in imposing the condition on the petitioner to take dasti summonses. It is further contended that under Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code'), it is the right of the party to get his witnesses summoned and there is no provision in the said Code whereby a condition can be imposed upon a party to take the responsibility of serving the summonses on his witnesses or to produce them. Though some amendment has been introduced in Rule 1 of Order 16 of the Code and Rule 7-A has been the party concerned to make an application to take dasti summons to effect service on any person, it has nowhere been provided that the Court can impose such a condition. This also cannot be denied that though a party has a right to get his witnesses summoned through Court, the party cannot adopt such tactics so as to delay the proceedings unreasonably or to abuse the process of the Court. Yet it will be quite unreasonable if the Court decides to impose a burden on the party on the very first day of bringing his own witnesses or to impose a condition of taking dasti summons. If some party adopts such tactics and the Court after exercising its judicial discretion comes to the conclusion that the attitude of such a party is not co-operative or the party is not furnishing correct addresses of his witnesses or has given unnecessarily long list of witnesses residing in far off places whose evidence even may not be deemed to be relevant to the controversy or that the witnesses summoned are evading service, it has the inherent jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders to expedite the proceedings, but it will not be a proper exercise of discretion if at the fist hearing the party is forced to bring the witnesses at his own responsibility or to take dasti summons. The learned counsel for the respondent has read out to me the order of the Rent Controller passed on June 9, 1977, when for the first time, the petitioner was directed to produce his evidence on the next date of hearing. On that very date, the only condition placed on the petitioner to take dasti summons which course was not warranted by any provision of the Code. It cannot be disputed that taking of dasti summons and to effect service on witnesses himself is very likely to put the party to a great financial burden and botheration. Keeping all these circumstances in view, the order of the Rent Controller is set aside to the extent the condition to take dasti summons as imposed on the petitioner. However, as observed above, if the petitioner adopts such methods as to justify the conclusion that he is abusing the process of the court, the Rent Controller will be competent to pass appropriate orders for expediting the trial and also for summoning the witnesses.

(3.) The revision petition is consequently allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. The parties are directed through their counsel to appear in the court of the Rent Controller on December 8, 1977.