IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.160 of 2010(O&M) Date of decision: 12.1.2010 Gurjeet Singh ......Petitioner(s) Versus Major Bhim Sain Mehta ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. This is tenant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Panchkula, whereby his application to lead additional evidence filed in a civil suit for possession by way of ejectment has been dismissed vide the impugned order. It is the case of the petitioner that he had taken the demised premises at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- in the month of July, 1999 whereas the rent claimed by the respondent is at the rate of Rs.3,900/- per month and to prove the same, the petitioner wanted to examine Brigadier M.S. Rana (who was the earlier predecessor-in-interest of the present landlord) as a witness but earlier he failed to do so. Now, the petitioner has traced out one photostat receipt of rent at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per month, duly issued and signed by Brigadier M.S. Rana in the month of August, 2004 Since the petitioner could not produce the said receipt earlier, he prayed for indulgence of this Court to allow him to produce the same by way of additional evidence for the just decision of the case. The aforesaid application was contested by the plaintiff- respondent submitting therein that Rent Act was not applicable to the premises in question and the respondent requires the aforesaid premises CR No.160 of 2010(O&M) -2- for his bona fide use and occupation. It was further submitted by the respondent that his evidence was closed on 27.1.2007 and thereafter the petitioner had availed 20 effective opportunities for leading his entire evidence and had further sought adjournment to lead evidence but his evidence was closed by the Court vide order dated 18.10.2008. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2008 and even his Special Leave Petition was dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2009 and thus, the present application for leading additional evidence was rightly rejected. On the basis of the above contentions of both the parties, the trial Court vide impugned order held that the petitioner does not deserve any further opportunity to lead his evidence. It was also noticed by the trial Court that by order dated 16.12.2009, the District Judge, Panchkula has directed the trial Court to dispose of the case by 31.1.2010. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already availed sufficient opportunities to lead and conclude his evidence, there is no justification to grant further opportunity to him for leading additional evidence. I find no fault with the impugned order wherein it has been observed that the application for leading additional evidence seems to have been filed merely to delay the case in hand. No merit. Dismissed. January 12, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE