JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.: (Oral) - The petitioner-tenant is before this Court challenging the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by Rent Controller, Moga, whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. On August 25, 2011, the following order was passed by this Court: The petitioner-tenant has challenged the order dated 10.08.2011 of Rent Controller, Moga, whereby his evidence has been closed by order of the Court. On an ejectment petition filed by the respondent-landlord, the petitioner was served. However, he was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 05.10.2002 and ex parte decree was passed against him on 29.03.2004. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 13.09.2005 for setting aside the aforesaid ex parte decree. His evidence was closed by order of the Court dated 16.05.2011 against which he had filed civil revision i.e.Civil Revision No.3752 of 2011 which was allowed in the following manner: “After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case from which I have found that the petitioner, who has been proceeded against ex parte is contesting the application for setting aside the ex parte order, had suffered heart attack and was operated upon as well, deserves one more opportunity to lead his entire evidence. Hence, the revision petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted one last opportunity to lead his entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the Court below subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-as costs to the landlord. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, on 21.07.2011, the Rent Controller fixed the date for allowing the petitioner an opportunity to lead his evidence on 10.08.2011. On the date fixed, the petitioner failed to lead his complete evidence and sought further adjournment on the ground that summoned witness could not come to the Court because he was bound down by some other court for the same date. However, from the documents produced on record, this Court does not find any order of the Rent Controller allowing the petitioner to summon the alleged witness. List on 13.09.2011. Let the records of the Rent Controller, Moga be called before the next date of hearing through Special Messenger. 2. However, from the documents produced on record, this Court does not find any order of the Rent Controller allowing the petitioner to summon the alleged witness. List on 13.09.2011. Let the records of the Rent Controller, Moga be called before the next date of hearing through Special Messenger. 2. Records have been received and a perusal of the same would show that there was no order of the Court, whereby this Court or the Rent Controller, Moga had allowed the petitioner to summon the witnesses through the process of the Court. In fact, even, it is not a case of the petitioner that the witness was to be summoned by the Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has shown a copy of the application vide which he has deposited the diet money and process fee for serving the witness, which was allowed on the administrative side. However, the application filed by the petitioner for summoning the witnesses with the help of the Court reads thus: 1. Concerned official/doctor of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital(unit-Hero DMC Heart Institute), Ludhiana along with complete record/file of patient Ashok Sathi having CR No.34604 for the period 22/06/2004 to till date. 2. Concerned official/doctor of Gulati Poly Clinic, Jail Road, Field Ganj, Ludhiana along with complete record in regard to patient Ashok Kumar s/o Roop Lal who got treatment from your hospital during the period 20.09.2002 to 30.09.2002. 3. A perusal of the aforesaid application would show that the petitioner had summoned the record of the concerned hospital. There is nothing on record to suggest that the witness who has returned the summons by saying that he has been bound down by some other Court, was the only Record Keeper with the aforesaid hospital or he was appointed by some competent authority to produce the record before the Rent Controller in the instant case. Admittedly, the ex parte decree was passed against the petitioner on 29.03.2004 and the instant application for setting aside the ex parte decree is still pending for the last six years. Even, after allowing an opportunity by this Court, vide judgment dated 02.06.2011, petitioner has failed to conclude his evidence. 4. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this revision petition. 5. Dismissed. 6. Records of the courts below be sent back, forthwith. -------------------