IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.5553 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 24.09.2009 Arvind Kumar Bansal .....Petitioner versus Rajive Kumar .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.D.S.Bali, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Salil Bali, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby his application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed, primarily, on the ground that before moving the said application, the evidence of the petitioner-tenant had been closed by an order of the Court dated 9.5.2009. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that in such like situation where the petitioner's evidence has been closed under the Court order, he can not be permitted to lead additional evidence as it would amount to recalling the C.R. No.5553 of 2009 (O&M) 2 order dated 9.5.2009 even without moving an application to that effect. In these circumstances, no interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application to recall the order dated 9.5.2009 whereby his evidence was closed. If such an application is moved, the Rent Controller, Narnaul, shall decide the same as early as possible and preferably within one month and in accordance with law. Dasti. 24-09-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE