The right to lead evidence is a valuable vested right, and substantial justice should inform the approach of the court in granting opportunities to lead evidence.

JUDGEMENT

1. Despite service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of respondent.

2. The matter has been passed over and called out at second time. The respondent is still not available.

3. The court has accordingly heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and proceeds to dispose of the petition, as the issue involved is short.

4. The impugned order, dated 4th March, 2022, was passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller ('the learned ARC') in E No 78997/2016 (Smt. Sanjana Saini v. Bharat Investment Corporation), which was an eviction petition preferred by the respondent against the petitioner.

5. Given the limited nature of the controversy in these proceedings, it is not necessary to advert to the specifics of the dispute between the parties. Suffice it to state that vide order dated 14th December, 2021, the learned ARC rejected the request, of the petitioner (the respondent before the learned ARC), seeking an adjournment on the ground of indisposition of the respondent's witness, who was a senior citizen.

6. The learned ARC was of the opinion that as the matter had been adjourned since long, awaiting recording of the petitioner's evidence, and costs had also been imposed on the petitioner in that regard, no occasion arose to grant any further opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence.

7. The right of the petitioner (the respondent before the learned ARC) to lead his evidence was, therefore, closed by the learned ARC, on 14th December, 2021.

8. The petitioner moved an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 14th December, 2021. Said application has come to be dismissed by the learned ARC vide order dated 4th March, 2022.

9. The following passages, from the impugned order, merit reproduction:

'It is stated in the application that the respondent is a permanent resident of Mumbai. It is averred that on 21.09.2019, the matter was kept for 13.11.2019 for leading of respondent's evidence. However, on 13.11.2019, due to strike of Advocates, the matter was adjourned and kept for 07.02.2020. On 07.02.2020, due to illness of the respondent and because he is resident of Mumbai, he could not appear and the matter was adjourned to 21.04.2020.

On 21.04.2020, there was lockdown imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic and on 18.08.2020, no one joined Cisco Webex and the matter was adjourned to 21.10.2020 for respondent's evidence. On 21.10.2020, no one appeared on behalf of the parties on video conferencing and therefore the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2021.

On 13.01.2021, the matter was taken up by video conferencing and therefore evidence could not be recorded. The case was adjourned to 07.04.2021.

On 07.04.2021, evidence could not be recorded since respondent was a resident of Mumbai and due to increase in the number of Corona patients, there were restrictions to come to Delhi. Matter was adjourned to 24.08.2021. On the said date, matter was taken up by video conferencing. However, no one appeared and the case was adjourned to 14.12.2021.

On 14.12.2021, matter was taken up physically. However, due to illness of the respondent being senior citizen aged about 78 years and suffering from various ailments, he was advised to stay at home. Therefore, he could not appear before the Court.

It is stated that evidence by way of affidavit of the respondent is ready and its copy will be supplied to petitioner with the permission of the Court.

It is stated that non-appearance of the respondent is neither intentionally nor deliberate. It is prayed that permission be granted to the respondents to lead evidence.'

10. Reiterating his earlier decision that several opportunities had been granted to the petitioner to lead evidence, and expressing a view that if, despite grant of last opportunity, further adjournment was sought, the direction of grant of last opportunity would become meaningless, the learned ARC rejected the petitioner's application under Ord