Civil Revision No. 6772 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No. 6772 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.8.2010 Arvind Kumar Bansal …Petitioner Versus Rajiv Kumar …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Nobody has caused appearance for the respondent despite service. Grievance of the petitioner/tenant is that his evidence was closed vide order of the Court dated 9.5.2009 (Annexure P2) and subsequently his application for additional evidence was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Narnaul, vide impugned order dated 3.11.2009 (Annexure P3). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order, whereby the prayer for additional evidence was declined, was challenged in Civil Revision No. 5553 of 2009, wherein this Court had passed the order dated 24.9.2009, which reads as under:- “...This revision petition is directed by the tenant against the order dated 10.9.2009 passed by the Civil Revision No. 6772 of 2009 2 Rent Controller, Narnaul, whereby his application to lead additional evidence has been dismissed, primarily, on the ground that before moving the said application, the evidence of the petitioner-tenant had been closed by an order of the Court dated 9.5.2009. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of the considered view that in such like situation where the petitioner's evidence has been closed under the Court order, he cannot be permitted to lead additional evidence as it would amount to recalling the order dated 9.5.2009 even without moving an application to that effect. In these circumstance no interference with the impugned order is called for by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application to recall the order dated 9.5.2009 whereby his evidence was closed. If such an application is moved, the Rent Controller, Narnaul, shall decide the same as early as possible and preferably within one month and in accordance with law. Dasti”. Learned counsel further submits that the present petition is Civil Revision No. 6772 of 2009 3 confined to assail the order dated 9.5.2009, passed by the Rent Controller, which reads as under:- “Present: As above. Three Rws present and examined. No other RW is present. Therefore, respondent evidence is closed by Court order. To come up on 11.6.2009 for rebuttal evidence, if any, for arguments. Sd/-Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) Narnaul. 9.5.09” I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the interest of fair play and to balance the equities, this Court is of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to conclude his entire evidence, at his own risk and responsibility, on the next date of hearing. The petitioner is burdened with the cost of Rs.5,000/-. The Rent Controller, Narnaul, on payment of the cost, shall provide one opportunity to conclude his evidence at his own risk and responsibility. With the observations made above, the present revision petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 9, 2010 “DK”