IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 4060 of 2009 Date of Decision: February 9, 2010 Smt. Raj Sehgal and others. ….Petitioners Versus Surjit Singh. …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND. Present: Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Uppal, Advocate, for the respondent. S.D. Anand, J. The petitioners herein had filed a petition under Section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the ejectment of the respondent herein from tenanted premises. After the conclusion of the affirmative evidence of the parties and also the rebuttal evidence of the petitioners herein, they filed a plea for the leave of the Court to adduce additional evidence by examining a hand- writing expert to compare the specimen signatures of the C.R. No. 4060 of 2009 deceased petitioner Harish Kumar with his purported signatures on Exh.R1. The plea was negatived by the learned Trial Court, by observing that parties had already concluded the evidence and even the rebuttal evidence had been closed and further because the petitioner had not been able to prove that the proposed additional evidence was not to his notice at any early point of time. It was further observed that the petitioner herein had not been to prove that he could not have adduce this evidence by the exercise of due diligence. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to aver that there is any factual inaccuracy in the observations recorded by the learned Trial Judge to the extent those relate to the fact that even the rebuttal evidence stands closed. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that the plea raised on behalf of the petitioners could not have been invalidated in view of the fact that the document (Ex.R1) had not been enclosed with the written statement in terms of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure. The fact that documentation aforementioned came to be mentioned in the course of the pleadings at the trial is not in dispute. In the light thereof, even if it is 2 C.R. No. 4060 of 2009 accepted that documentation aforementioned had not been enclosed with the pleadings, it does not enable the petitioner herein to wish away the fact that he had already closed his affirmative evidence, the party opposite had closed defence evidence and the petitioners herein had also closed the rebuttal evidence. In the totality of the circumstances of the case, the petition is held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed. The trial Court record, requisitioned, in terms of order dated 10.11.2009 granted by a Coordinate Bench (Surya Kant, J.) of this Court, be returned forthwith to the learned Trial Court. The stay order dated 23.07.2009 passed by this Court shall stand vacated. The vacation of the stay order shall be intimated to the learned Trial Court forthwith. February 9, 2010 ( S.D. Anand ) vkd Judge 3