The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of granting reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and imposing costs to compensate for any inconvenience caused, as emphasized by the provisions of Order XVII Rule 1 CPC and previous case law.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Suri, J. - This is a petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside the order dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Executing Court, whereby opportunity to cross-examine the objector's witness, OW-1 Banwari Lal Ola, was treated as nil.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners are 'landlord' and the proforma respondent Nos.2 and 3 are their 'tenant'. The petitioners sought ejectment of their tenants from the demised premises on account of non-payment of arrears of rent. The terms and conditions of the lease agreement between the landlord and tenant was reduced into writing dated 05.09.2013, described as Memorandum of Understanding cum Lease Agreement. Before the Rent Controller, the tenant was stated to be in arrears of rent and in view of the law settled in Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002(1) RCR (Rent) 514, provisional rent was assessed to the tune of Rs. 1,35,49,625/-. As the tenants failed to pay the provisional rent, order of eviction dated 10.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) was passed in favour of the petitionerlandlord and against the tenants.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed execution application seeking possession of the demised premises from respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said execution proceedings were resisted tooth and nail by the tenant-judgment debtors. The tenant-judgment debtors impugned the various orders passed by the Executing Court before this Court by way of CR-1938-2020, which petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure P-4). Respondent No.l-Bank filed objections in the said execution proceedings and has averred that the tenants had mortgaged the lease hold rights in the demised property in favour of the objector Bank. It was thus prayed in the objection petition that possession of part of the demised property obtained by the decree holder in the execution proceedings, be ordered to be delivered to the objector-Bank. The objections were hotly contested and the Executing Court, being of the opinion that the question of fact could only be determined by leading evidence, framed issues vide order dated 10.10.2022 (Annexure P-6).

4. After framing of the issues, the matter was adjourned to 11.11.2022 for the evidence of the objector-Bank. On the adjourned date, examination-in-chief of OW-1 Banwari Lal Ola, Chief Manager of the objector-Bank was recorded and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of counsel for the decree holder i.e. the petitioners. An application for framing of additional issues was also filed by the objector-Bank. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 05.12.2022 for cross-examination of OW-1 Banwari Lal Ola and for filing reply to the application noticed above. On 05.12.2022, on the request of the counsel for the decree holder, cross-examination of the said witness was deferred to post lunch session. When the matter was taken up post lunch, a request was made on behalf of the counsel Mr. T.S. Sandhu, Advocate, by moving an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the said counsel for the decree holder was not available in the Court as he had to leave due to some personal urgency. It is submitted that the spouse of the said counsel was critically unwell then and has unfortunately passed away. The Executing Court only considered the aspect that the witness has come present from Rajasthan and assurance was meted out that the cross-examination would be conducted post lunch but the same has not been preferred. Accordingly, the application seeking adjournment was declined and the impugned order was passed, whereby it was ordered that the cross-examination of the witness OW-1 Banwari Lal Ola, is treated as nil.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners-DH would suffer irreparable loss if they are not allowed to cross-examine the official witness of the Bank that is claimed to have acquired leas