IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 127 CR-4948-2026 Date of decision: 03.07.2026 Yogesh Kumar . . . . Petitioner Vs. Jai Prakash Bhardwaj . . . . Respondent **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present civil revision has been filed by the tenant assailing the order dated 19.05.2026 passed by the learned Rent Controller, Faridabad in Rent Petition No. RP/73/2025 titled Jai Prakash Bhardwaj versus Yogesh Kumar, whereby the cross-examination of PW1 was ordered to be treated as Nil. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although PW1- Jai Prakash Bhardwaj was present on 19.05.2026 for the purpose of his cross- examination, the petitioner had, on the same day, moved an application seeking de-sealing of the demised premises. It is argued that since the said application had a direct bearing on the proceedings, the learned Rent Controller ought to have first decided the said application instead of closing the opportunity to cross-examine PW1. It is further submitted that PW1 had tendered his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on 02.02.2026 and a copy thereof had been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner on the same day. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 12.03.2026. On 12.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner could not cross-examine PW1 and the case was adjourned to 09.04.2026. On 09.04.2026, the learned Rent Controller noticed that issues had inadvertently not been framed earlier. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4948-2026 2026:PHHC:090083 After framing the issues, the matter was adjourned to 19.05.2026 for further proceedings. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order as well as the record placed before this Court, no ground warranting interference under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is made out. 4. The record reveals that the affidavit of PW1 by way of examination-in-chief had already been tendered on 02.02.2026 and a copy thereof had admittedly been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner on the very same day. The petitioner thus had full notice of the evidence sought to be relied upon by the respondent-landlord. The matter was thereafter adjourned specifically for cross-examination of PW1. On 12.03.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner did not cross-examine PW1, without any justifiable reasons. Even thereafter, although issues were formally framed on 09.04.2026, the case was again fixed on 19.05.2026 for recording the cross-examination of PW1. Thus, sufficient opportunities had already been afforded to the petitioner to test the veracity of the witness. 5. On 19.05.2026, when PW1 was present and ready to face cross- examination, the petitioner neither commenced nor offered to conduct the cross-examination. Instead, an adjournment was sought solely on the ground that an application seeking de-sealing of the demised premises had been filed. The learned Rent Controller rightly observed that the said application related to an independent matter and did not furnish any legal justification for postponing the recording of evidence. Pendency of an interlocutory application, unless it has the effect of rendering further proceedings legally impermissible, cannot by itself stall the trial or entitle a party to defer cross- examination of a witness, who is present before the Court. 6. It is a settled principle that adjournments are not to be granted as a matter of course. A litigant cannot insist that evidence should await disposal of every interlocutory application of his choice. Equally well settled is the principle that once a witness is present before the Court, the opposite VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4948-2026 2026:PHHC:090083 party is expected to avail the opportunity to cross-examine him. Failure to do so, despite adequate opportunity, entitles the Court to regulate its proceedings by closing such opportunity in order to prevent avoidable delay. Procedural law is intended to facilitate expeditious adjudication and cannot be permitted to become an instrument for prolonging the trial. 7. Viewed from the aforesaid perspective, the learned Rent Controller committed no jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in treating the cross-examination of PW1 as Nil. The impugned order represents a proper exercise of judicial discretion aimed at ensuring timely progress of the proceedings and does not call for interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. At the same time, this Court is conscious that denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a material witness may, in an appropriate case, result in serious prejudice to the defence of a litigant. Since the eviction petition is yet to be finally adjudicated and the respondent can be adequately compensated by costs for the delay occasioned by the petitioner, this Court considers it appropriate, in the interest of substantial justice, to exercise its equitable jurisdiction by granting one final and last opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW1. Such indulgence, however, cannot be unconditional, particularly when the petitioner himself is responsible for not availing the earlier opportunities. 9. Consequently, while upholding the legality of the impugned order dated 19.05.2026, the same is modified only to the limited extent that the petitioner shall be afforded one final opportunity to cross-examine PW1- Jai Prakash Bhardwaj, subject to payment of costs of ₹10,000/- to the respondent-landlord by way of a demand draft. Payment of the aforesaid costs shall be a condition precedent for grant of such opportunity. 10. It is further directed that if, on the next date fixed before the learned Rent Controller, the petitioner either fails to tender the aforesaid costs or again fails to avail the opportunity to cross-examine PW1, the present concession shall automatically stand withdrawn and the impugned VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-4948-2026 2026:PHHC:090083 order dated 19.05.2026 treating the cross-examination of PW1 as Nil shall revive and operate in full force without requiring any further order. 10. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the present revision petition stands disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 03.07.2026 JUDGE Vivek Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No VIVEK PAHWA 2026.07.06 11:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document