Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Comffits Mktg (Marketing ) And Anr vs Metroflex Fitness Llp And Ors on 4 April, 2024
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
2024:PHHC:045854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
134 CR-2036-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 04.04.2024
M/S COMFFITS MKTG (MARKETING ) & ORS. .... Petitioners
VERSUS
METROFLEX FITNESS LLP & ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the petitioners.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the
order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Rent
Controller, Chandigarh whereby the evidence of the petitioners has been
closed by order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that on
07.02.2024 one witness, namely, Gurdarshan Singh was summoned.
However, he had stated that the summoned record is available with the
Office of SDO (Building) and hence the concerned official from the said
Department may be summoned. Accordingly, Gurdarshan Singh was
discharged and summons to the concerned official of the Office of SDO
(Building) was issued for 15.02.2024. Another witness, namely, Chandan
Preet Kaur, Office of Excise and Taxation Inspector was also summoned.
However, she could not be examined on the said date and she was bound
down for the next date of hearing i.e. 15.02.2024. Third witness, namely,
ASI Balbir Chand did not appear and a request was received from him which
was allowed and fresh summons were issued to ASI Balbir Chand for the
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:045854
134 CR-2036-2024 (O&M) -2-
date fixed i.e. 15.02.2024. It is further the contention that on 15.02.2024
petitioner No.2 had given his affidavit in examination-in-chief and thereafter
the case was adjourned to 11.03.2024 for his cross-examination on the
request of the counsel for the respondents herein. Thereafter on the said date
i.e. 11.03.2024 petitioner No.2 could not appear for his cross-examination as
he was unwell and was under treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has further contended that given one opportunity petitioner No.2 would
present himself for his cross-examination on the next date of hearing itself
i.e. 16.04.2024. It is further the contention that once the witnesses have been
bound down it was the duty of the Court concerned to take the matter further
to its logical end and to ensure the presence of the said witnesses. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners do not wish to lead
any further evidence and would not summon any further witness except for
the three witnesses as stated above as well as petitioner No.2 himself for his
cross-examination.
3. Notice of motion.
4. Mr. Anuj Raura, Advocate and Mr. Akash Ahlawat, Advocate
have appeared and have accepted notice on behalf of the respondents and
waive service. Learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the
petitioners have been trying to delay the matter. The eviction petition has
been filed by the respondent-landlords on the ground of bonafide personal
necessity and the matter has been delayed by the petitioners on one pretext
or the other.
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:045854
134 CR-2036-2024 (O&M) -3-
5. Heard.
6. In the present case the counsel for the petitioners has contended
that petitioner No.2 though had given his affidavit in examination-in-chief
on 15.02.2024, however, he could not present himself for cross-examination
on 11.03.2024 due to medical reasons. It has further been contended that
given one opportunity the petitioner No.2 would present himself for cross-
examination on the next date of hearing itself i.e. 16.04.2024. On 07.02.2024
three witnesses were summoned by the Court concerned. Gurdarshan Singh,
who was summoned, had stated that the summoned record is available with
the Office of SDO (Building) and accordingly summons to the concerned
official of the Office of SDO (Building) was directed to be issued as per the
statement of Gurdarshan Singh and Gurdarshan Singh was discharged.
Another witness, namely, Chandan Preet Kaur from the Office of Excise and
Taxation Inspector was also summoned but she could not be examined and
she was bound down for 15.02.2024. The 3rd witness, namely, ASI Balbir
Chand had sent a request which was allowed and fresh summons were issued
to the witness, namely, ASI Balbir Chand for the date fixed i.e. 15.02.2024.
On 15.02.2024 petitioner No.2 filed his affidavit in examination in chief and
his cross-examination was deferred on request of the counsel for the
respondent. None of the other witnesses had appeared and the matter was
adjourned to 11.03.2024. On 11.03.2024 yet again none of the witnesses
were present and witness from the concerned Estate Office was ordered to be
summoned through bailable warrants for 19.03.2024. On 19.03.2024 again
integrity of this judgment/order.
2024:PHHC:045854
134 CR-2036-2024 (O&M) -4-
none of the witnesses were present and accordingly the evidence of the
petitioners was closed by order. As far as the cross-examination of petitioner
No.2 is concerned, this Court deems it appropriate to grant one opportunity to
petitioner No.2 to present himself for cross-examination on the next date of
hearing itself i.e. 16.04.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners has assured
the Court that petitioner No.2 is now well and would appear before the Court
for cross-examination and that the petitioners would not seek a date on any
account. Regarding the official witnesses, it is the duty of the Rent Controller
concerned to ensure the presence of the said witnesses since they were
summoned witnesses.
7. In view of the above, order dated 19.03.2024 (Annexure P-1)
cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside subject to payment of
Rs.30,000/- as costs to be paid by the petitioners to the respondents. The
payment of costs shall be a condition precedent. The Rent Controller concerned
shall take requisite steps for ensuring the presence of all the three witnesses as
stated above. It is further made clear and as stated by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that no further application would be given for summoning of any
other witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further assured the
Court that the petitioners would not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the
present case. The Rent Controller concerned is requested not to allow any
unnecessary adjournment in the case.
8. Disposed off in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, also
stand disposed off.
04.04.2024 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
integrity of this judgment/order.
