IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5709 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011 M/s Verma Glass & Plywood Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner(s) Versus Mrs. Vinay Deep Kaur Mann & Ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. A.K. Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) The petitioner, who was respondent No.2 before the Rent Controller has filed the instant revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 28.7.2011 of the Rent Controller whereby an application filed by him to allow proforma respondent No.4 (respondent No.1 in the ejectment petition) to lead additional evidence was dismissed. The said application was filed stating that the evidence on behalf of respondent No.4 could not be led due to inadvertence of its earlier counsel and the fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when the new counsel was engaged who inspected the file for addressing arguments. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlords/respondents No.1 to 3 has pointed out that in fact a joint written statement was filed by the petitioner, as well as, respondent No.4 before the Rent Controller, wherein a specific stand had been taken that respondent No.4, on whose behalf prayer to lead additional evidence has been made was not in existence since 1992 and a further averment was made that the said respondent was not in occupation of the premises in dispute and the petition was not maintainable against respondent No.4. Not only this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has also pointed out that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were represented by one and the same counsel before the Rent Controller and they have availed ten opportunities for leading evidence and finally on 8.4.2011, the evidence of the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 was closed by order of the Court on the statement of the learned counsel representing them and thus, there was no occasion for the Court to allow the prayer of the petitioner granting permission to lead evidence to respondent No.4 which is not in existence since 1992 as alleged by the petitioner itself. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order as well as the averments made in the written statement of the petitioner and respondent No.4, with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. The facts as mentioned by the learned counsel for the respondents as aforesaid could not be disputed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, he has submitted that the Court can allow additional evidence if the Court finds it necessary to adjudicate the matter effectively and which goes to the root of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that for the mistake of the counsel, the litigant should not suffer. From the facts as narrated above, it is crystal clear that the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have filed a joint written statement and they were represented by the same counsel. Not only this, after availing many opportunities for leading evidence finally their evidence was closed on the statement of the counsel vide order dated 8.4.2011. The said order has never been challenged by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that for the inadvertence or mistake of the counsel, the petitioner should not suffer is without any basis. Even from the conduct of the petitioner, it seems that the petitioner is adopting dilatory tactics. As per the written statement, respondent No.4 at whose instance additional evidence is sought to be led is not in existence and also out of possession of the demised premises. Not only this, respondent No.4 itself is not forthcoming to pray that he be allowed to lead evidence and the application has been filed by the petitioner that respondent No.4 be allowed to lead evidence. This clearly shows that intention of the petitioner to delay the decision. Thus, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are without any merit and are liable to be rejected outrightly. Thus, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. October 18, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE