Prem Parkash vs Jai Parkash
2025 Latest Caselaw 1986 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prem Parkash vs Jai Parkash on 10 February, 2025

Author: Vikas Bahl

Bench: Vikas Bahl

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169




CR-851-2025                               1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH
                      ***

                                                 CR-851-2025
                                                 Date of decision : 10.02.2025

Prem Parkash

                                                       ... Petitioner

                     Versus

Jai Parkash

                                                       ... Respondent

CORAM:        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:      Mr.Davinder Singh, Advocate,
              Ms.Rajinder Kaur, Advocate and
              Ms.Shivangi, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025

(Annexure P-13) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the

cross-examination of the respondent Jai Parkash is treated as Nil as well as

impugned order dated 27.01.2025 (Annexure P-17) passed by the Rent

Controller, Ludhiana, vide which the application dated 17.01.2025

(Annexure P-15) filed by the petitioner for recalling the order dated

08.10.2025 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner could not cross-examine the respondent-landlord since his

counsel Mr. Sunil Sharma, Advocate was under treatment with respect to

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169

problem in lower back and for the said purpose, the petitioner has referred

to medical certificate dated 05.01.2025 from a private hospital. It is

submitted that the petitioner be granted one opportunity to cross-examine

the said respondent-landlord.

3. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has

perused the paper book and finds that the impugned order deserves to be

upheld and the present petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed for

the reasons stated hereinafter.

4. The respondent-landlord had filed a petition under Section 13

of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 for ejectment of the

present petitioner from the shop in question on 22.12.2021. The eviction

was sought on various grounds including the ground of personal necessity

as well as arrears of the rent.

5. It is not in dispute that on 29.11.2024, the present petitioner

had moved an application for seeking permission to cross-examine the

respondent-landlord in view of the additional evidence produced by the

respondent-landlord and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2024.

The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

".........Although it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no need for any further cross- examination of the petitioner as only documents have been tendered into evidence, but if applicant/respondent is not allowed to cross-examine the petitioner on the documents tendered into additional evidence, it would tantamount to throwing away the case of applicant/respondent without even affording him an opportunity to rebut the documentary

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169

evidence adduced by the petitioner. So in the interest of justice, present application is allowed and only one effective opportunity is granted to the respondent to re-cross-examine the petitioner on the documents tendered by the petitioner in additional evidence. For re-cross-examination of the petitioner, the case stands adjourned to 08.01.2025. Pronounced in open Court;

Dated: 18.12.2024. (Preeti Sukhija) Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ludhiana. UID No.PB0276"

A perusal of the above order would show that the Rent

Controller had granted only one effective opportunity to the present

petitioner to re-cross-examine the respondent with respect to the documents

tendered and a specific date i.e. 08.01.2025 was given. It would be relevant

to note that the said case was argued on behalf of the present petitioner by

Sh.Anurag Sharma, Advocate. It would further be relevant to note that the

order dated 18.12.2024 has not been challenged any further and thus, only

one opportunity was required to be granted to the petitioner and that to for

08.01.2025. On 08.01.2025, although the respondent-landlord was present

for cross-examination but the same was not done and thus, in view of the

order dated 18.12.2024, opportunity to cross-examine with respect to

additional documents was treated as Nil. There is nothing on record to

suggest that on 08.01.2025, it was stated before the trial Court that there

was any medical problem with the counsel as it was only stated that the

counsel was not available.

6. The application filed for recalling of the order dated

08.01.2025 was dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025 by observing that on 3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169

18.12.2024 one opportunity was granted and thus, it was not for the trial

Court to review its own order. It was further observed that the documentary

evidence, which were certified copies of the order were filed in additional

evidence and sufficient cross-examination had already been conducted

previously and thus, the application was dismissed.

7. The fact that vide order dated 18.12.2024, only one opportunity

was granted has not been disputed before this Court. The said order dated

18.12.2024 has attained finality and once the present petitioner was not able

to avail the said opportunity for which the case was fixed for 08.01.2025,

no further opportunity could have been granted to the petitioner. A perusal

of the order dated 18.12.2024, as well as the detailed order dated

05.11.2024, would show that Sh. Anurag Sharma, Advocate, had been

appearing for the present petitioner and it is not the case of the petitioner

that Sh.Anurag Sharma, Advocate had any medical problem and thus, the

said Sh.Anurag Sharma, who had been repeatedly appearing in the matter,

could have cross-examined the said respondent-landlord, moreso, when the

said cross-examination was only on the limited point with respect to

documents, which were only certified copy of the petition titled as "Jasjit

Singh vs. Prem Parkash", certified copy of the written statement filed in the

same and also the sale deed which was executed by the present petitioner

from one Jasjit Singh (which facts have been informed to this Court by

learned counsel for the petitioner). Even the application for recalling has

been rightly dismissed vide order dated 27.01.2025.

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Neeraj

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169

Jindal Vs. Manju, CR No.5243 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019 had

observed that the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC which is with respect

to recalling and re-examining the witnesses, cannot be invoked by a private

party as the aforesaid provision is meant only for the convenience of the

Court and that the said powers can only be exercised by the Court according

to its convenience and the parties to the litigation cannot invoke the same.

The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

".......Even otherwise, process of the Court in terms of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC cannot be invoked by the private party as the aforesaid provision is meant only for convenience of the Court. The Court at any stage can re-call any witness who has been examined and may put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit but the said exercise does not permit a party to reexamine any witness or to fill lacuna in the case.

In view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy vs N. Palanisamy, (2011) 11 SCC 275 and Ratti Ram vs Mange Ram (D) through LRs and others, 2016 (2) RCR (Civil) 464, powers under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can only be exercised by the Court according to its convenience and the party to the litigation cannot invoke the said provision.

The aforesaid principle was also reiterated in Vadiraj Nagappa Vemekar vs Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410.

For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not see any justification to interfere in the impugned order which is not found to be suffering from any error of jurisdiction.

This revision petition is accordingly, dismissed."

xxx xxx xxx

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:019169

9. Moreover, a perusal of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC would show that

it is the Court which has the power to recall any witnesses who has been

examined and put questions to him as the Court thinks fit and there is no

vested right in a private party to seek recalling of the witnesses for the

purpose of further cross-examination.

10. It is apparent that the tenant is only trying to delay the

proceedings and thus, the impugned orders deserve to be upheld and the

present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

February 10, 2025.

Davinder Kumar

                 Whether speaking / reasoned                         Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                                  Yes/No




                                    6 of 6