The court's decision was based on the lack of grave injustice shown by the petitioners and the deliberate delay in the case, leading to the dismissal of the application to summon a witness.

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.

1. The petitioner have filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 10.12.2005, passed by Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby their application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code for summoning the witness Kanti Lai under the relevant provisions of law has been dismissed.

2. In this case, the petitioners filed two different ejectment applications under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 against Parmodh Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for his ejectment from the shop in question on the ground of non-payment of rent and making additions and demolition of the roof of the demised shop. These two petitions were filed because of non-payment of rent from two different periods. During his evidence, the respondent denied the execution and his signatures on the letter dated 1.5.1980, which according to the petitions was issued by the respondent to Kanti Lal, In rebuttal evidence, the petitioners wanted to examine one Sukhinder Singh, a hand-writing expert and Kanti Lai to prove that the said letter bears signatures of the respondent Parmodh Kumar. The respondent alleged this letter to be forged and fabricated one. On the additional issue as to whether the amount of Rs. 5,470/- and interest tendered by the respondent is liable to be refunded or not, the petitioners want to prove the signatures of the respondent on the aforesaid letter. The petitioners could not examine the said witness Kanti Lai because he is living at Mumbai. therefore, they filed an application for two times under Order 26 Rule 9 and Order 16 Rule 19 C.P.C. for appointment of Commission to record the statement of Kanti Lai on the ground that the said witness is suffering from the attack of paralysis and is an old man, therefore, he cannot bear long journey due to his sickness and infirmity. Both the times, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present application to summon the aforesaid witness Kanti Lal under the relevant provision of law, which has also been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2005. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not examine Kanti Lal because he is suffering from the attack of paralysis and is an old man and in this regard, he himself sent a medical certificate by post to the Court. Learned Counsel submits that when two applications filed by the petitioners to examine the aforesaid witness on commission have been examined by the Court, then this witness should be allowed to be summoned with the assistance of the Court.

4. After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and going through the impugned order, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of the Superintending jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners could not show any grave injustice caused to them. In this case, the ejectment application was filed in the year 1991. In view of this fact, the Rent Controller, in my opinion, has rightly dismissed the application, particularly in the facts and circumstances of the case, when the case is very old and the parties are deliberately delaying the matter. Thus, I do not file any ground to interfere in the impugned order.

5. Dismissed.