AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) By means of present writ petition, the petitioner seeks writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.08.2015, passed by learned Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in P.S. case no. 12 of 2013, Satpal vs Harish Kumar, whereby the application paper no. 72C filed by the petitioner seeking permission to cross-examine respondent no. 1 / applicant and his witness Shyam Sunder has been rejected.
2) When the writ petition was taken up for admission, vide order dated 05.11.2015, notices were issued to the respondents. When notices were served upon the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed his interim relief application, on which following order was passed by this Court on 17.06.2016:
"Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Interim relief application is pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that an opportunity for adjournment be granted to the tenant- petitioner before the court below as landlord-respondent no. 1 did not turn up before this Court, despite service of notice upon him. Such opportunity is granted. It is provided, as an interim measure, that if an application for adjournment is moved on behalf of the petitioner before the court below, the same shall be considered favourably for a period of six weeks. Interim relief application no. 12814 of 2015 stands disposed of."
3) Today, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that the petitioner be granted opportunity to cross-examine Satpal Talwar (respondent no. 1 herein). Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that another witness Shyam Sunder (respondent no. 2 herein) has died.
4) Purely on the basis of concession granted by learned counsel for respondent no. 1, petitioner is granted permission to cross-examine Satpal Talwar on 03.07.2017, or, if the date is postponed due to some unavoidable circumstances, on 10.07.2017, positively.
5) It is also provided that an endeavour be made by learned Prescribed Authority to decide P.A. case no. 12 of 2013, Satpal vs Harish Kumar, pending before it, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
6) With the direction as above, the writ petition stands disposed of.