Back
ARUN MONGA
Babu Ram – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Gogna – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of eviction proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments on cross-examination necessity. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's view on procedural justice. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. opportunity for cross-examination granted. (Para 11) |
| 5. disposal of pending applications. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Arun Monga, J. (Oral)
Petition herein inter alia is for setting aside impugned order dated 15.11.2017 (Annexure P-9)passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana whereby application under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC')filed by revisionist/tenant for recalling witness-respondent No.2/Rekha Gogna for further cross-examination, was dismissed.
2. The revision petition is premised on the averments that respondent/landlords filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (as amended up to date) for eviction of revisionist from the shop in question. Respondents led their evidence and subsequently filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of rent petition to state that respondent No.2 wanted to expand her business and wanted to open a marble craft gallery in the demised premises. The said appli
The recurring nature of the landlord's bona fide requirement justifies granting liberty to withdraw the eviction petition and file a fresh one on the same cause of action.
Parties in litigation must be granted adequate opportunities to present their case, and procedural delays should not prevent justice if not caused by mala fide intentions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
