JUDGMENT: P.K.Palli, J.: This revision petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Challenge in this petition is made to the order passed by the Rent Controller (I), Shim la whereby application under Order 18 Rule 17 and 17-A further read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, filed by the respondent/tenant before that Court for re-calling the petitioner/landlord for further cross- examination, stands rejected. Parties here-in-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as Landlord and tenant. 3. Undisputedly,,one Balwant Singh was the tenant of the respondent/landlord who died somewhere in October, 1972. According to the tenant, the tenancy rights after the death of the original tenant have devolved upon all the heirs left behind by him. 4. The rent petition has, however, been filed by the landlord only against Kulwant Kaur, who, according to the landlord, is the only heir and tenant. Objection has been taken by the tenant in the trial Court that the petition cannot proceed without impleading other heirs- who \are necessary parties and on whom the tenancy rights have also devolved. Be that as it may. We are not concerned with this aspect of the matter as these pleas have been raised and controverted by the parties and it is for the Rent Controller to decide the same. It is further not disputed that the petition for ejectment by the landlord was failed way back in March, 1990 and the case is still at the stage of evidence of the petitioner and the same has not been concluded as yet. 5. After the examination of the landlord appearing as his own witness, an application was filed by the tenant for re-calling him for the purpose of further cross-examination. I: is stated in the application that Surjeet Singh who was son of the original tenant Balwant Singh, has also died somewhere in the year 1988 and after his death the family members while sorting out certain papers, got hold of certain counter-foils of the cheques issued by Surjeet Singh, since deceased, in favour of :he landlord in respect of the rent having been paid by him. The details of these cheques are given in para 3 of this revision petition and it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the tenant at the Bar that the counter-foils have also been attached with the application for re-calling the landlord for the purposes of further cross-examination. C, The Rent Controller while rejecting the application, has made an observation that the statement of the landlord Om Parkash, appearing as PW-2, was recorded in June, 1995 and it cannot be said-that lie tenant remained confused from March, 19S8 to June, 1996 when the statement was being recorded. It has been further observed that the time which elapsed” between the death and examination of ±e landlord was sufficient for the tenant to get strength. It is in this view cat the application stands rejected. 7. Mr. R.L. Sood, appearing for the landlord, while opposing the application, submits that the landlord does not admit the other heirs to be the tenants over the property in question and Surjeet Singh was occupying other premises as a tenant 2nd he died there. It is also being argued that the case is not covered by the provisions of-Order 18 Rule 17 or 17-A or the Civil Procedure Code and no case has been made out by .he tenant mat even after exercise of the diligence, the evidence with which the landlord is sought to be confronted, was not available: 8. Mr. Sood further relies upon a decision of this Court given in Heera Devi vs. Raj Kumar Khanna, (Civil Revision No.81/96, decided on April 22, 1996). 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the impugned order, I find that the revision petition deserves to be allowed. 10. As notice above, the landlord has not yet concluded his evidence. This is again an admitted position that the original tenant Balwant Singh has " died and the petitioner is his widow. The son of the petitioner, namely, Surjeet Singh died in the year 1988 at a very young age. 11. There is no doubt that a searching cross-examination has already been conducted from the side of the tenant and the permission is now sought from the Court for re-calling the landlord who has already appeared as PW-2 for. The son of the petitioner, namely, Surjeet Singh died in the year 1988 at a very young age. 11. There is no doubt that a searching cross-examination has already been conducted from the side of the tenant and the permission is now sought from the Court for re-calling the landlord who has already appeared as PW-2 for. Further cross-examination on the question of payments of rent by certain cheques issued by Surjeet Singh, the deceased son of the petitioner who is the widow of the tenant. The provision contained in Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code give very wide powers to the Court to re-call any witness who has already, been examined at any stage of the proceedings and put such questions as the court thinks fit. 12. The rule would, thus, apply for the purpose of re-calling of the witness after the statement has already been recorded. The intention behind this rule is to give an opportunity to a party to put such questions to the witness already examined which could not be put to him earlier due to inadvertance. 13. Under Rule 17A of Order 18 of the Civil Procedure Code where a party satisfies the Court that, after exercise of due diligence, evidence which was not within its knowledge or could not be produced at the time when that party was leading its evidence, the Court may permit that party to produce that evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to it to be just. 14. As I read these Rules, I find that each case has to be examined on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. It may be added with emphasis that rules of procedure are not meant for punishing the litigation parties but to advance justice between them coupled with equity. What is sought to be put to the witness, who happens to be the landlord in the present case, arc certain cheques which were issued to him and the number of these cheques along with counterfoils have already been placed on record along with the application, it is not a case where the delay is being caused to the progress of the proceedings by the tenant. The Rent Controller trying the petition should have considered the matter from a proper angle and should not have examined the matter from the angle of technicalities of procedural law. The Rent Controller trying the petition should have considered the matter from a proper angle and should not have examined the matter from the angle of technicalities of procedural law. 15. The petitioner/tenant, in my opinion, has sufficiently made out a case in the application that these documents were not in her possession or custody. These documents should, in the normal course, be in the possession of Surjeet Singh, her son who has, admittedly, died, it is said in the application that Surjeet Singh died in the prime of the life in very tragic circumstances. It has also been said that after his death the family remained under shock and confusion for a considerably long time. As these documents were not in the knowledge of the petitioner/tenant, question regarding this evidence could not be put to the landlord when he was appearing as this own witness 16. The ground taken by the tenant, thus, fully satisfies the conscience of the Court that even after exercise of due diligence, the evidence was not within the knowledge of the tenant and, therefore, the relevant questions could not be put by the counsel during cress-examination of the witness. 17. It may also be seen that the provisions contained in these rules do not apply to proceedings before the Rent Controller but the fact cannot be denied that the Rent Controller, in the given situation, is at full liberty to hold trial according to the principles of natural justice and evolve its own procedure to meet that end. It may also be stated that when-ever a situation of the kind arises, aid can definitely be taken from the Code of Civil Procedure or decided case law on the point in order to do substantial justice between the parties. 18. It was not a case which should have been examined strictly under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 or 17-A of the Civil Procedure Code and the Rent Controller has certainly gone wrong in declining the prayer made by the tenant in the given set of circumstances. I have also gone through the judgment Cited by Mr. R.L. Sood. With respect, the judgment is hardly relevant for the purposes of deciding this revision petition in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 19. In case the matter is examined from the technical view, Rule 17 . I have also gone through the judgment Cited by Mr. R.L. Sood. With respect, the judgment is hardly relevant for the purposes of deciding this revision petition in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. 19. In case the matter is examined from the technical view, Rule 17 . would apply only where’ the court desires to re-call any witness for the purposes of putting certain questions to him. Rule 17 A would apply where a party, while leading its evidence, could not produce such evidence when even after exercise of due diligence chat piece of evidence was not within its knowledge or some reasons are forthcoming that it could not be produced at the time when the evidence was being led. In such circumstances, the Court may permit that party to lead further evidence at a later stage on such terms as may appear to be just. 20. In-the given situation, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is horsy set aside. The application filed by the petitioner/tenant is allowed and the .landlord is directed to be re-called for the purpose of further cross-examination by the tenant in respect of the payments which are said to , have been made by cheques. No prejudice, in my view, is going to be caused, to cither of the parties by allowing the re-examination of the witness by re-calling him. Tr.e Rent Controller shall fix a date for this propose and all out efforts be made for expediting the hearing of this petition which has already taken mere that seven years. The landlord shall, however, be entitled to :Rs.l000/-as cost. 21. The parties through their leaded counsel, arc directed to appear before the Rent Controller (I), Shimla on November 17th 1997, where after the Rent Controller shall proceed to dispose of the proceedings in the light of the observations made above. Copy of this order is directed to be sent to the concerned Court forthwith for compliance. 22. The revision petition is disposed of in the light of the observations made above. Dusti copy on usual terms. Appeal allowed.