IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3244 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision:29.05.2009 Radha Krishan ...Petitioner versus Sanjeev Rastogi ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. G.S.Ghuman, 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) C.M. No.13499-CII of 2009 Application is allowed as prayed for. Civil Revision No.3244 of 2009 1. The revision is against the order rejecting a plea made on behalf of the tenant to give additional evidence by summoning and proving an income tax returns to establish that the property did not belong to the petitioner. According to the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the evidence was closed on 02.03.2009 and he moved an application on 26.03.2009 as soon as he came to know that there were records to evidence the fact that the property belonged to HUF and not to the individual who had filed the petition for eviction. Civil Revision No.3244 of 2009 (O&M) - 2 - Without going into the merits of the contention, if only there was a delay caused in some way by the tenant in moving the Court for additional evidence, it could have been compensated by cost and not dismissed the petition itself. 2. The order of the Court below, under the circumstances, is set aside and the tenant shall be afforded an opportunity to summon the relevant record from the Income Tax Department and prove it according to law, on condition that the petitioners pays Rs.2500/- with cost to the landlord on or before 15.06.2009, failing which the order of the Court below shall stand confirmed. 3. The Civil Revision is disposed of in the above terms. ( K.KANNAN) JUDGE 29.05.2009 sanjeev