Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2026) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 21438 = 2026:PHHC:135291
Decided on: 21.09.2026
Present:
Mr. Vishwajit Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
***
Eviction petition – Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside and two effective opportunities granted, subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.
***
East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (3 of 1949), Section 13, 15 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 17 Rule 3 – Eviction petition -- Closure of evidence – Illness of counsel – Counsel suffering from neurological problem and hospitalized – Failure to lead evidence not intentional or deliberate – Litigant should not suffer on account of illness of counsel or bona fide lapse – Orders closing evidence set aside – Two effective opportunities granted to lead and conclude evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-.
(Paras 6-8)
***
DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA, J. (ORAL) –
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for recalling of the order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11), whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order, has been dismissed.
2. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that the respondent has filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. It transpires that vide order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11), the evidence of the petitioner in the rent petition was closed by order. A perusal of the said order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11) would show that numerous opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead and conclude his entire evidence; however, he failed to conclude the same. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the evidence of the petitioner was closed vide order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11). Aggrieved against the said order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner filed an application for recalling the same. The said application was considered and dismissed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, vide order dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-13). Aggrieved against the order dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-13), the petitioner has filed the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that counsel for the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, was unable to appear w.e.f. 01.11.2025 to 11.03.2026 as he was suffering from a neurological problem and was also admitted in the hospital. Reference has been made to the discharge summary issued by the hospital (Annexure P-14). As such, the petitioner was unable to lead and conclude his evidence. Learned counsel further submits that it came to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 27.05.2026 that the case has been listed for evidence. On coming to know about the aforesaid fact, learned counsel for the petitioner requested the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, for a short adjournment to lead the evidence of the petitioner. However, the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, closed the evidence of the petitioner vide order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11). He prays that two effective opportunities may be granted to the petitioner to lead and conclude his evidence.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the paper-book with his able assistance.
5. Taking into consideration the nature of the prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent.
6. A perusal of the facts of the case would show that it is not in dispute that the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, was suffering from a neurological problem from 01.11.2025 to 11.03.2026 and was also admitted in the hospital. Reference has been made to the discharge summary issued by the hospital (Annexure P-14) filed along with the present revision petition.
7. Taking into consideration the abovesaid facts, it cannot be held that the petitioner failed to lead his evidence on the date fixed by the Rent Controller, Ludhiana, intentionally or deliberately. A litigant should not be made to suffer on account of the illness of his counsel or any bona fide lapse on the part of the engaged counsel.
8. In light of the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 19.08.2026 (Annexure P-13) as well as the order dated 27.05.2026 (Annexure P-11), whereby the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order, are set aside. The Rent Controller, Ludhiana, is directed to grant two effective opportunities to the petitioner to lead and conclude his evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the respondent. In case the petitioner fails to conclude his evidence within the aforesaid two opportunities, no further opportunity shall be granted to him for the said purpose.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
Petition allowed.
********