CR No.1741 of 2011 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.1741 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.05.2011 Madan Lal Aggarwal . . .Petitioner Versus Mahabir Parshad and another . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Dinesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Pal, Advocate, for the respondents. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J (ORAL) CM Nos.11388 & 11389-CII-2011 Applications are allowed as prayed for. CR No.1741 of 2011 This revision petition is by the landlords against the order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the Rent Controller, Rohtak by which his application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) for producing a certificate of Vaish Senior Secondary School, Rohtak in order to prove the date of birth of respondent No.2/Mukesh Kumar Mittal has been dismissed. It is admitted that the landlord had closed his evidence in the month of October 2006 and the aforesaid birth certificate issued by the School was already in his possession. Rather it is alleged that it was handed over to the counsel but he forgot to use it during the course of leading his evidence from which he wanted to prove that the tenant was 16 years of age at the time of entering into tenancy and was not competent to enter into a contract. He also submitted that the tenant has pleaded his age as 10.10.1972 to overcome the difficulty of his competence to enter into a contract of taking the demised premises on rent, however, the learned Court below rejected the application, inter alia, on CR No.1741 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - the ground of delay as well as that the document having been in his possession, if not used at the time when evidence was led by the landlord in affirmative, cannot be allowed to be used after his evidence is ordered to be closed by the Court, by way of additional evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document sought to be produced by way of additional evidence goes to the root of the case, therefore, it can be allowed even at the stage of argument. He relies upon two decisions of this Court in the cases titled as “Pawan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumar and others” 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 385 and “Amarjit Singh Vs. Baldev Singh and another” 2009(2) RCR (Rent) 507. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that once the evidence, which is sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence, was earlier within the knowledge of the party, the additional evidence cannot be allowed at this stage. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of “Krishan Kumar Sardana Vs. Sita Ram Adlakha” 2009 (4) RCR (Civil) 333. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Insofar as the decision in the case of Pawan Kumar (Supra) is concerned, in that case, petitioner wanted to produce certified copy of the statement made by counsel for the respondents in the previous suit as well as certified copy of the order passed by this Court on the basis of statement made in Court whereby suit was withdrawn. This Court held that the said evidence is per se admissible and is necessary to adjudicate the dispute between the parties because one of the issues involved in the said suit was whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC. In this background, the Court had held that the said statement made by party as well as his counsel while withdrawing the suit goes to the root of the case, therefore, it can be brought by way of additional evidence. In the case of “Amarjit Singh (Supra), the landlord field written statement and admitted that Amarjit Singh was a tenant in the demised premises under the landlord. In that background the tenant moved an application for additional evidence to enable him to produce copies of the plaint and written statement of the earlier suit titled as Amarjit Singh and others Vs. Baldev Singh and another. This Court while allowing the application held that CR No.1741 of 2011 (O&M) - 3 - though the tenant was some what negligent and had not produced the copies of the pliant and written statement at the earlier stage, but that alone was not a sufficient ground to negate the prayer of the tenant particularly when the additional evidence sought to be produced on record are the copies of the plaint and written statement in earlier suit between the parties are vital piece of evidence, which would go to the root of the case. In the present case, however, the document which is sought to be produced is not a document which is per se admissible as it is neither a judicial order nor a certified copy of the order. Although the landlord has urged that it was given to his counsel earlier and he could not produce it but the fact remains as to whether it was given or not is a question of fact because had it been given to the counsel, he would have definitely used it at the time of leading his evidence in order to prove the age of the tenant and if it is not done then the landlord is to be blamed and not the tenant for the negligence on his part. In view thereof, I do not agree with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner especially when the petitioner wanted to overcome the lacuna in the evidence, which has been left by him while leading his evidence. In view thereof, present revision petition is found to be without any merit and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) MAY 02, 2011 JUDGE Vivek