Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 311 (HP)

Chand Thakur v. Vinod Kumar Mehta

2019-03-25

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner assails order dated 01.07.2017, passed by the learned Executing Court (Court of learned Rent Controller, Shimla) District Shimla, H.P. vide which the right to record remaining evidence of the petitioner/objector has been closed on the ground that as petitioner/objector had failed to lead remaining evidence despite four opportunities having been granted, no further opportunity could be granted. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and I have gone through the record of the case. 3. It is a matter of record that Issues on the Objections filed by the petitioner were framed by the learned Executing Court on 15.03.2017. The case was ordered to be listed on 11.04.2017 for recording the evidence of the Objector. On the said date no evidence was led on behalf of the Objector and prayer made for another opportunity to lead evidence was allowed and the matter was listed for 28.04.2017 to record evidence. 4. On the said date also no evidence was led by the Objector. Another opportunity on the prayer of the Objector was granted and the case was listed for recording the evidence of the Objector for 24.06.2017. 5. On the said date also, the same story was repeated. The Objector did not lead any evidence and again a prayer was made that opportunity be granted to lead evidence. Learned Executing Court acceded to the said request also on imposition of costs of Rs. 300/-. 6. The next date for leading the evidence of Objector on self responsibility was fixed for 01.07.2017. On the said date statement of the Objector was recorded. No other evidence was led by the Objector. Another request was made on behalf of the objector for grant of opportunity to lead remaining evidence, which stood declined by learned Executing Court vide impugned Order. 7. Having gone through the record, this Court does not finds any perversity or illegality with the Order so passed. As despite sufficient opportunities having been granted from 11.04.2017 onwards, entire evidence was not led by the Objector then the Court was not expected to wait in perpetuity for the Objector to lead her evidence. 8. 7. Having gone through the record, this Court does not finds any perversity or illegality with the Order so passed. As despite sufficient opportunities having been granted from 11.04.2017 onwards, entire evidence was not led by the Objector then the Court was not expected to wait in perpetuity for the Objector to lead her evidence. 8. Therefore, as learned Executing Court has rightly closed the remaining evidence of the objector, as she failed to lead evidence despite reasonable and sufficient opportunities having been granted, this Court does not finds any perversity with the impugned Order and this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 9. At this stage, Mr. Neeraj Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of the order passed by the learned Executing Court dated 01.07.2017 will demonstrate that certain applications stand filed by the Objector on the said date before the learned Executing Court and it may be observed that the Order being passed by the Court today shall have no bearing upon the same. It goes without saying that the applications which find mention in order dated 01.07.2017 shall be decided by the learned Executing Court on their merit totally uninfluenced by any observations made in this Order by the Court. Registry is directed to forthwith return back the record of the case to the learned Executing Court.