CR-8479-2025 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-8479-2025 Date of decision: 20.07.2026 Swaran Singh ...Pe--oner Versus Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha (Regd.) ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Lovish Raan, Advocate for the pe%%oner. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for the respondent. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) By way of the present revision pe%%on filed under Ar%cle 227 of the Cons%tu%on of India, the pe%%oner-tenant assails the order dated 30.10.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Rent Controller, Amritsar, whereby the respondent-landlord closed its evidence a9er trea%ng the further cross-examina%on of AW2 as 'Nil'. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent-Gurudwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha ins%tuted an ejectment pe%%on under Sec%on 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restric%on Act, 1949, seeking evic%on of the pe%%oner from the demised premises. The evic%on pe%%on has remained pending since December, 2020. A9er comple%on of pleadings and framing of issues, the respondent-landlord commenced its evidence. 3. AW1-Arwinder Singh, Civil Engineer-cum-Dra9sman, tendered his affidavit by way of examina%on-in-chief along with suppor%ng documents on 30.07.2024. On the request of learned counsel for the pe%%oner-tenant, his cross-examina%on was deferred and was eventually concluded only on 06.08.2025. On the same day, AW2-Taranjit Singh, YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8479-2025 [2] through whom the evic%on pe%%on had been ins%tuted, entered the witness box and tendered his affidavit in examina%on-in-chief. Again, on the request of learned counsel for the pe%%oner, his cross-examina%on was deferred. Therea9er, the maer was adjourned on several dates and AW2 was partly cross-examined. The proceedings reveal that adequate opportuni%es were granted to the pe%%oner to conclude the cross- examina%on. However, despite repeated adjournments, the pe%%oner failed to complete the same. 4. Ul%mately, on 30.10.2025, AW2 appeared before the learned Rent Controller at about 10:30 A.M. and remained present throughout the day. The case was repeatedly called %ll about 4:30 P.M., but neither the learned counsel for the pe%%oner appeared nor was any request made on his behalf. In these circumstances, a9er appearance of the counsel for pe%%oner at 4:30 PM, the learned Rent Controller treated the further cross- examina%on of AW2 as 'Nil'. Therea9er, the respondent-landlord closed its evidence and the maer was adjourned for the pe%%oner's evidence. 5. Aggrieved thereof, the present revision pe%%on has been filed contending that the learned Rent Controller inadvertently treated the cross- examina%on of AW2 as complete, thereby causing prejudice to the pe%%oner. 6. Learned counsel for the par%es have been heard at length. This Court has also perused the original trial Court record, which was summoned during the course of hearing. 7. The conten%on advanced on behalf of the pe%%oner deserves outright rejec%on. The order-sheet maintained by the learned Rent Controller leaves no manner of doubt that AW2 was repeatedly produced for cross-examina%on and the pe%%oner had been afforded sufficient as well as effec%ve opportuni%es to complete the same. The witness remained YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8479-2025 [3] available before the Court on relevant dates, yet the pe%%oner failed to avail the opportuni%es granted. 8. More significantly, on 30.10.2025, the witness remained present in Court from 10:30 A.M. onwards. The maer was repeatedly called %ll 4:30 P.M., but the learned counsel for the pe%%oner failed to appear except at 4:30 PM. In such circumstances, the learned Rent Controller had no op%on but to close the opportunity for further cross-examina%on. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be described either as arbitrary or as suffering from any procedural irregularity. 9. The submission that the learned Rent Controller inadvertently treated the cross-examina%on as 'Nil' is wholly misconceived. The order was not passed on account of any inadvertence or clerical mistake. Rather, it was a conscious judicial order passed a9er gran%ng repeated opportuni%es and no%cing the absence of the pe%%oner's counsel despite the witness remaining present throughout the day. The plea sought to be raised before this Court is, thus, contrary to the record itself. 10. It is equally well seled that the supervisory jurisdic%on of this Court under Ar%cle 227 of the Cons%tu%on is intended to ensure that subordinate Courts act within the bounds of their authority. It is not an appellate jurisdic%on enabling this Court to interfere with every procedural order passed during the course of trial. Unless the impugned order suffers from patent perversity, jurisdic%onal error or manifest failure of jus%ce, interference under Ar%cle 227 is wholly unwarranted. 11. In the present case, no such infirmity is demonstrated. Rather, the record unmistakably reflects that the pe%%oner himself failed to avail the opportuni%es repeatedly granted by the learned Rent Controller. A li%gant who is himself responsible for the closure of an opportunity cannot invoke the extraordinary supervisory jurisdic%on of this Court to undo the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-8479-2025 [4] consequences of his own default. 12. Rent proceedings are intended to be decided expedi%ously. The evic%on pe%%on has already remained pending since December, 2020. The conduct of the pe%%oner in repeatedly seeking adjournments and therea9er remaining absent on the date fixed for comple%on of cross-examina%on clearly indicates an aempt to protract the proceedings. Such conduct deserves to be deprecated, as it defeats the very object of the summary procedure contemplated under the Rent Act. 13. Consequently, finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdic%onal error in the impugned order warran%ng interference under Ar%cle 227 of the Cons%tu%on of India, the present revision pe%%on is dismissed. 14. Considering the conduct of the pe%%oner and the unnecessary invoca%on of the supervisory jurisdic%on of this Court, the pe%%on is dismissed with costs of ₹10,000/-, to be paid by the pe%%oner to the respondent through a demand dra9 before the learned Rent Controller within four weeks. Needless to observe, upon payment of the aforesaid costs, the pe%%oner shall be at liberty to lead his evidence before the learned Rent Controller, if otherwise permissible in accordance with law. 15. The trial Court record be returned forthwith. 20.07.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.07.21 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document