IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.5346 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 9.11.2011 M/s Shivam Telenet Pvt. Ltd. -----Petitioner Vs. Dr. Suresh Kumar & another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present:- Mr. Karan Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Bedi, Advocate for respondent No.1. --- RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. This is tenant’s revision petition challenging the impugned judgment dated 19.7.2011 of the Rent Controller, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby his application for permitting him to lead additional evidence was rejected. The respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition against the petitioner on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner contested the same taking a specific stand that the landlord does not need the property in dispute for his personal necessity and in fact he is getting the premises vacated to sell the same. C.R. No.5346 of 2011 It is not in dispute before this Court that after framing the issues, both the parties were granted ample opportunities to lead evidence and after availing many opportunities, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-tenant closed his evidence. Even in the application for leading additional evidence, the petitioner has not made out any ground to allow him to lead additional evidence. The averments made in the application are totally vague. It has been said that his evidence was closed by his counsel without his knowledge and he wants to lead more evidence in support of his case. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any complaint etc. against his lawyer. Even the details of the evidence sought to be led has not been mentioned in the application for leading additional evidence. It could not be disputed that the case is at the fag end and in fact fixed for arguments. No doubt the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are hand made for administration of justice, however, the same also cannot be used to promote the abuse of process of law. No justification has been shown to allow the petitioner to lead additional evidence in the instant case. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition is dismissed. November 09, 2011 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE 2