IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.572/2025 Date of Decision: 25th September, 2025. Jitender Kukreja .....Petitioner Versus Sanjay Sood and Ors. ….Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral). By way of the present petition, a challenge has been laid to the impugned order dated 19.09.2025 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Rent Controller, Shimla, District Shimla, HP, whereby the evidence of the present petitioner/respondent No.1 before the learned Rent Controller has been closed. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 3. The present petitioner is respondent No.1 before the learned trial Court. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that only two witnesses remained to be examined by the present petitioner/respondent No.1 in the case at hand. For effecting the service of the said witnesses, notices had been issued to the two witnesses i.e. Sh. H.S. Gulati and Smt. Rinchan Kapoor, through the ordinary process as well as Dasti process. However, service of Sh. H.S. Gulati, could not be effected, on account of incorrect address. Further as per the impugned order, the whereabouts of Sh. H.S. Gulati could not 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 be ascertained by the present petitioner. Insofar as Smt. Rinchan Kapoor is concerned, the said witness could not be served, as she was in Chandigarh, on account of treatment of her son. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present respondents, in the case at hand, have preferred a petition for eviction of the present petitioner and one of the ground, which is being urged therein is subletting. In the eviction so filed, it has been averred that the suit premises have been sublet by the present petitioner/respondent No.1 to Sh. H.S. Gulati, who is respondent before the learned Rent Controller and has been proceeded against ex parte in the said proceedings before the learned Rent Controller. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sh. H.S. Gulati has issued a certificate, which has been placed on record, wherein he has categorically submitted that the suit premises were being used by him for the purpose of selling liquor for a particular period and commission on account of the same was being paid by Sh. H.S. Gulati to the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is this certificate, which needs to be proved by Sh. H.S. Gulati. 5. Insofar as Smt. Rinchan Kapoor is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is required to prove the signatures of her late husband i.e. late Sh. Sudhir Kapoor, who is one of the witnesses to an agreement dated 27.03.2007 placed on the record of the leaned Rent Controller. 3 6. Trial is a search of truth on presentation of facts. This purpose is succinctly captured in the following terms in American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, 2007: “This purpose of trial is to determine the validity of the allegations. The objective is to secure a fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the litigation and not the achievement of a hearing wholly free from errors. Once a civil action has been instituted and issue is joined upon the pleadings, there must be a trial on the issue before a judgment may be rendered. Trial is not a contest between lawyers but a presentation of facts to which the law may be applied to resolve the issues between the parties and to determine their rights. It is also not a sport; it is an inquiry into the truth, in which the general public has an interest.” 7. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that opportunity should be afforded to the parties to produce their evidence and state their case before the Court. The Court has to exercise the jurisdiction in favour of the production of the evidence instead of scuttling it. Even otherwise, from the facts narrated herein above, it is evident that the two witnesses, in the case at hand, could not be served and in the same, there was no default on the part of the present petitioner. 8. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate that Dasti summons, in terms of Order 16 Rule 7A CPC, be provided to the present petitioner for effecting service of the aforesaid two remaining witnesses, who need to be examined. 4 9. Application in this respect be moved by the present petitioner before the learned Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Presiding Officer would not be available tomorrow i.e. on 26.09.2025. In view thereof, let the application be filed by tomorrow i.e. 26.09.2025 and the same be taken up on 06.10.2025. Dasti summons be provided forthwith to the present petitioner, the same be made returnable on or before 28.10.2025. 10. In view of above the present petition stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) Judge 25th September, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)