IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1469 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 14, 2011. Saini Sabha Trust, Hisar. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Anand Parkash Saini. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate for the respondent. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 01.02.2011, Annexure P2 passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Hisar vide which application, Annexure P5 filed by the petitioner- plaintiff for production of original affidavit dated 31.03.1999, was declined. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. CR No.1469 of 2011 Brief facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that, petitioner-plaintiff is a Trust and is owner of shop in dispute, which is in possession of respondent-defendant. Plea of petitioner-plaintiff is that respondent-defendant is in possession of the same as tenant. Dispute is regarding date of commencement of tenancy though relationship of landlord and tenant is not disputed. Tenancy was allegedly terminated by petitioner- plaintiff and hence, the present suit for possession has been filed. After evidence of both the parties concluded, the present application for additional evidence was filed, which was dismissed by learned trial Court vide impugned order. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that the copy of said affidavit has already been placed on record and exhibited as Ex.P12 in the statement of PW5. It is further contended that even witnesses of petitioner-plaintiff were not cross-examined on this point by counsel for the respondent-defendant. It is also contended that original affidavit could not be produced at the time of evidence being adduced by the petitioner-Trust inadvertently due to negligence of the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondent-defendant that no case for adducing additional evidence is made out as there is nothing on the record as to why the said document was not produced when the evidence was being led by the petitioner-plaintiff. Dispute between the parties is regarding commencement of the tenancy. Petitioner is placing reliance upon an affidavit dated 31.03.1999 allegedly executed by respondent-defendant at the time of commencement of 2 CR No.1469 of 2011 the tenancy. Hence, the said document is necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy. Moreover, copy of the said document is already exhibited. In view of these facts, the petitioner-plaintiff can be permitted to produce and prove the said document as per law and the other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, the present revision petitioner is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for additional evidence is allowed. However, petitioner-plaintiff is burdened with cost of `10,000/-, which shall be a condition precedent. ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) December 14, 2011. JUDGE ‘om’ 3